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] Was : RE: 2012-09 - now : PDP 'I Agree discussion'
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy update request on certification of transferred IPv4 allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Was : RE: 2012-09 - now : PDP 'I Agree discussion'
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Erik Bais
erik at bais.name
Fri Feb 22 11:53:43 CET 2013
Hi Jan, >> It's an oddity of the PDP. I'm not sure if it serves a useful purpose >> because at the times when there are piles of proposals flying around (e.g. >> now), people end up getting jaded by the requirement for constant acks >> and me-toos. >Agree... is this painful enough that we need to change it? Looking at how the process currently goes, I don't think that changing this would make everyone his/her live so much easier. Personally I think doing it the way that we currently do it, might look a bit redundant, but it does provide clear consensus during all phases of the PDP. Typically we seem to be pretty easy to get on top of policies again if it is needed .. (just look at the simple email from one of the chairs to restate support in the current phase / or state of the proposal. ) How would you propose to change it if it would be changed ? Erik Bais
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy update request on certification of transferred IPv4 allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Was : RE: 2012-09 - now : PDP 'I Agree discussion'
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]