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] 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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sat Dec 15 13:13:56 CET 2012
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 01:06:27PM +0100, Dan Luedtke wrote:
> I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear.
>
> Can't we just say n days instead of month?
> With n being 30* days?
So, do you want to see this policy implemented quickly, or do you want to
paint a bikeshed instead?
I think "one month" is perfectly fine. In practice, it would not make
a difference whether this is 30 or 31 days, and I'm sure the NCC would
be reasonable if February is involved - but even 28 days is better than
7 days (what we have now).
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- 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 ]