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] 2014-07, was [Re: 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")]
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-07, was [Re: 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")]
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-07, was [Re: 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Fri Oct 24 16:20:52 CEST 2014
On 24/10/2014 07:16, Peter Koch wrote: > thanks, Nick, my mistake, indeed. 2014-08 seemed OK (except for the > misapplication of RFC 2119). The comments were in response to 2014-07, > "Language Clarification in "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" Uh, are you sure the comments weren't intended for 2014-11? At least one of us is thoroughly confused here, possibly both. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-07, was [Re: 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")]
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-07, was [Re: 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]