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] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Wed Nov 8 10:12:59 CET 2017
Hi Gert, all, Sorry, I thought that you also consider the opinions in the meeting, so just repeating myself, I’m against this proposal. I know, a policy can probably never be perfect at once, but I will prefer, in this case, having a better solution than an intermediate step to a better one, as otherwise we are complicating the interpretation of many other aspects in the overall IPv6 policy. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert at space.net> Responder a: <gert at space.net> Fecha: miércoles, 8 de noviembre de 2017, 9:46 Para: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) Dear Working Group, On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 03:08:07PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" is now in the Review Phase. I'm a bit disappointed by the reactions of the WG on this - one voice of support on the list, silence otherwise. Then, quite vocal opposition at the RIPE meeting in dubai (to the current version, v2.0, while still in favour of the general idea to loosen up the IPv6 PI policy somewhat). Afterwards, silence again. But if it's not on the list, it did not happen, as per the ever-repeated explanation at the meetings. So, does this mean "the WG supports the current form of this proposal", and "the outburst at the RIPE meeting was not meant as sustained opposition"? So: > We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 17 November 2017. Please speak up *here* if you have opinions on this proposal. 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]