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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2010-01 New Draft Document Published (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-01 New Draft Document Published (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Draft Document Published (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at baycix.de
Mon Aug 16 10:45:10 CEST 2010
Hi, Am 09.08.2010 16:08, schrieb Gert Doering: > Hi APWG folks, > > since *no* comments were received on the revised 2010-01 document > announced by Emilio some 6 weeks ago, we can't move forward with this > ("silence is consent" is valid in Last Call, but not in the discussion > and review phases). i know that only commenting on "interesting" policies which concern oneself is a bad habbit, but really, how many people does this one concern at all? The proposer should have sneaked something in the text like "..and regular IPv4 assignments will stop on 31.12.2010." or so :-) > > Please read the document and tell us whether you want to see this > become policy or not. > > We'll prolong the review period by 4 more weeks, to give you time > to read& comment this. Since i haven't needed any temp. assignments yet, i can't say much about the text itself - i think the comments from Marco etc. were reasonable though. I just like to comment on the general idea now. Basically i didn't really react to this proposal because my first thought was "on no, not another legacy IP regulation policy. I don't want any new ones about IPv4.". OTOH since it only concerns TEMPORARY assignments, it's nothing permanent and can be changed again any time in the future. AND it even does help a bit with the depletion of IPv4 since there would be some medium large block being reserved and taken out of the free pool for this ;-) So, in the greater sense of why i think is right, i have no problems with this policy, and it might help some people organizing bigger conferences and similar events in the near future. Since it seems like bigger continuous PI blocks already get scarce, it's about time to think about such things requiring a larger block. No objections. -- ===================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = =====================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-01 New Draft Document Published (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Draft Document Published (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]