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] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dan Luedtke
maildanrl at gmail.com
Sat Dec 15 13:06:27 CET 2012
I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear. Can't we just say n days instead of month? With n being 30* days? Regards Dan * Open to discussion, but I think 30 days is a reasonable time, as long as there is more space than events taking place. -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]