Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Separate lists for v4 and v6?

From: "Lipford, Mark A [PCS]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:08:04 -0600

I actually like seeing the discussions together.  As a company that has a
nationwide MIPv4 network, we are very interested in MIPv6 and how we can
move toward that.

Thanks.
Mark A. Lipford
Sprint PCS
Manager, Industry Standards - Data Technology
15405 College Blvd.
Lenexa, KS  66219
 
[email-masked]
 
+1 (913) 890-4248 (Office)
+1 (913) 890-4291 (Fax)
+1 (913) 226-9060 (Mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorn Andersson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:31 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mobile-ip] Separate lists for v4 and v6?

Hi,

I would like to have separate mailing lists for MIPv4 and MIPv6. The
discussions held on the current list are seldom applicable to both
MIPv4 and MIPv6. I believe the target audience for v4 and v6 are
mainly two distinct groups: MIPv4 is a relatively mature protocol with
several commercial and real-life deployments, while MIPv6 is still in
a more a less development and experimental phase. Having two lists
would make it easier to follow the development of both protocols.
Alternatively (instead of two lists) it could be mandated that each
message should have 'MIPv4' or 'MIPv6' in the subject line. I don't
however know how this could be easily enforced.

What is the rest of the WG's feeling on the matter?

  Bjorn

-- 
Bjorn Andersson <[email-masked]>
PGP id 5AFC144B
Mobile +358 40 7723074

---

From: Bjorn Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:59:35 +0200

> nationwide MIPv4 network, we are very interested in MIPv6 and how we can

Nothing stops you from subscribing to both lists. I have rarely,
if ever, seen a thread that has been relevant to both MIPv4 and v6.

I am mainly working on MIPv4, but I am also intrested in how MIPv6 is
proceeding.  My point was that I would like to be able to categorize
the mails so that the discussions would be easier to follow. MIPv4 is
my real work and interest so I like to follow the MIPv4 discussion
in detail. MIPv6 is of secondary interest and I like to scan the
discussions every now and then. For some other person it might be
the other way around. 

Currently there is more discussion around MIPv6. Finding the MIPv4
messages and discussions in this message forest is time consuming since
I have to open and scan nearly every message to find out if it is
related to MIPv4 or MIPv6.

As a minimum I would like to ask everyone to add "MIPv6" or "MIPv4" in
the mail subject line, please.

Thank you,
Bjorn

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:47:30 +0100

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:59:35 +0200
Bjorn Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:

<snip>
> related to MIPv4 or MIPv6.

I agree with Bjorn, and whether there is a split into two working groups
or not, think it would be an excellent idea to have two lists. 

If it's any help in the decision, I hereby offer to host one here, regular
Mailman setup with archives and web interface.

	Regards,
		Henrik

-- 
  "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is
  being very wasteful. How true that is."  
    -- J. Danforth Quayle

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:02:46 +0100

> or not, think it would be an excellent idea to have two lists. 

That's the idea, yes.

> Mailman setup with archives and web interface.

Thanks for the offer! Will keep it in mind as things solidify.

-gabriel

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:38:43 +0200 (EET)

> Thanks for the offer! Will keep it in mind as things solidify.

I support the separation, but (without any knowledge of bureaucracy
required) I'd strongly emphasize the preference to move to [email-masked]
list hosting services, at least for official working group lists.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:14:11 +0100

> list hosting services, at least for official working group lists.

Agree. I even tried (unsuccessfully) ietf.org even for the mipcharter
(nsiim) BOF list. Hopefully for official WG lists they are more
responsive, but it doesn't hurt keeping our options open. Hence,
thanks Henrik for the offer.

-gabriel

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:45:01 +0100

> > list hosting services, at least for official working group lists.

Absolutely; if that works, it's ideal.

Gabriel wrote
> thanks Henrik for the offer.

You're welcome!

	Henrik

-- 
Error message in Haiku form:

  Login incorrect.
  Only perfect spellers may
  enter this system.

    -- Jason Axley