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] inconsistency in 2016-04
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: A Shrinking Pie? The IPv4 Transfer Market in 2017
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Fri Jan 19 14:52:07 CET 2018
> On 19 Jan 2018, at 13:41, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > Changing the PDP itself is not something we can do here in AP, though - that > is something the plenary needs to agree, as the PDP governs all working > groups. Indeed. It will almost certainly be far quicker and much less painful to push a new policy proposal through the PDP than get the PDP changed. Jordi if you think the PDP is defective, by all means explain what the problem(s) is and suggest solution(s). However if you do down that path in the hope of resolving your unhappiness with the consensus decision on 2016-04 I think you may well become even more unhappy. Another troubling data point for everyone: This proposal started in 2016. It's now 2018.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: A Shrinking Pie? The IPv4 Transfer Market in 2017
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]