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] Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Richard Hartmann
richih.mailinglist at gmail.com
Wed Nov 24 11:19:24 CET 2010
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:31, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals. To be fair, the prefix scheme might be adapted to other uses as well. For example, it might make sense to use ripe-doc- for documents, at some point. Also, as pointed out in my initial email, ripe-nnnn is used for documents. ripe-nnnn and ripe-nnnn-nn are way too similar for humans to parse correctly at all times and they don't sort nicely, either. Richard
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]