This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
TJ
trejrco at gmail.com
Thu Apr 1 15:03:08 CEST 2010
Personally, I am STILL waiting for RFC1776 support as well; I find both the 32b and 128b constraints to be unacceptably small for use as address fields. 1696B is far more appropriate ... On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 08:54, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > Nick, this proposal is far-reaching and deserves the fullest consideration > by the WG. I trust there will be plenty of time to discuss it at RIPE60 > before it passes to the other RIRs because of its global implications. > [Perhaps an ad-hoc study group is needed to thoroughly research this topic?] > However I feel implementation of this policy proposal will have to wait > until the NCC has been able to support RFC1437. > > -- /TJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20100401/26b1d1bd/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]