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] R: making progress with 2015-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] making progress with 2015-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Enrico Diacci
ed at tsnet.it
Wed May 11 10:29:17 CEST 2016
I try to go beyond the 2015-05: When an LIR can claim to have reached 4 (or 5) stars of RIPEness for IPv6 may require an additional /22 (if you do not already have space equivalent to a /20) stating its reasons for the new allocation with a project and proving to have it completed within one year. This new /22 will in no way be transferred before 3-5 years. I tried to remove the term of 18 months: what do you think about? Regards, Enrico Diacci. it.tsnet -----Messaggio originale----- Da: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Per conto di Jim Reid Inviato: mercoledì 11 maggio 2016 10:05 A: Riccardo Gori Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG Oggetto: [address-policy-wg] making progress with 2015-05 > On 11 May 2016, at 08:53, Riccardo Gori <rgori at wirem.net> wrote: > > Sander noticed there are people here that are confirming that a change > is accepted and someone else noticed that 2015-05 can be re-written or > re-invented to meet better the tasks You as a chair should accept this > and should help the community to understand how to follow up with a > reasonable solution The WG’s co-chairs have not expressed an opinion on this proposal. This is to be expected since they have to make the consensus determination if 2015-05 reaches that point. Others have pointed out flaws and raised substantial objections. These issues have not been answered, let alone resolved. Supporters of 2015-05 should accept this and should help the community to understand how to follow up with a reasonable solution. We’re waiting. PS: Apologies for a relevant and meaningful Subject: header. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 6354 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160511/9ed5be26/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] making progress with 2015-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]