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] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Feb 16 11:45:57 CET 2015
Hi, thanks, Nick and Erik for taking this up. Given what was said... On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:35:53AM +0100, Erik Bais wrote: [..] > > Previous policy proposals have had clarification text added between > phases, > > so it's possible that adding the text wouldn't necessarily delay the > > proposal - obviously this is a decision for the ap-wg chairs. > > As we are going into a full re-styling of the Transfer Policies into a > single document, we will have to see if it is going to be required to do > that in this particular version or in the next re-style. > There is little value imho to add clarification text here as we are going to > cut the text in a couple weeks into a new document. If that new version > needs a beter explanation it would make more sense in doing it there. ... I'd actually go forward now (that is: go to last call as announced) and spend the extra brain cycles on making sure that the final unified transfer policy document is very clean, language-wise and policy-wise. Erik has clearly stated the intent to do such a unified document, so if what we have now is sufficiently clear policy-wise (which seems to be the case, as per the impact analysis), I'd rather not spend another round on wordsmithing, or think about what sort of language changes are fine going from "review" to "last call" phase (typos, obviously) and what would consist a policy change and should go to another round of review. So: Nick, if that is OK with you? (In the upcoming document, it would be actually good to have the language cleanup right in the discussion phase, and not in review phase, where larger changes would incure another impact analysis...) 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150216/0bc828ca/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]