[address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02

On 08-12-11 22:12, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> wrote:


>In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections":
>
>We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both
>during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call.  A few persons
>had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but
>still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained.

<all hats off, as usual>

Gert,

I fail to see how my comment from June 29th, quoted below, is part of your
summary.

Quote:
While I do sympathise with the
rationale behind the proposal, doing it this way strikes me as having an
awful lot of (unintended?) side effects. I personally don't have a better
suggestion to achieve resolution of the problem that this proposal aims to
fix, but at the same time I'm unconvinced that everybody's who's been
supporting the proposal has been doing so for the problem this policy aims
to fix, and not one of its (again, unintended?) side effects.
End quote.

If we're going to have a meta-discussion about whether consensus has been
reached, I think we should be clear on what the proposal intends to fix
first. 

Agreeing with the rationale behind a proposal doesn't imply I agree with
the text of the proposal as-is.


Best,

Remco



This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately.  Equinix Europe Limited.  Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW.  Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.