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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Mon Jan 15 12:17:14 CET 2018
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having > no objections, not a “democracy voting”. APWG aims to follow the IETF approach to consensus, as defined in rfc7282. This explicitly allows for consensus to be declared even if there are outstanding objections. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]