[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
TJ
trejrco at gmail.com
Thu Apr 1 15:03:08 CEST 2010
Personally, I am STILL waiting for RFC1776 support as well; I find both the 32b and 128b constraints to be unacceptably small for use as address fields. 1696B is far more appropriate ... On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 08:54, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > Nick, this proposal is far-reaching and deserves the fullest consideration > by the WG. I trust there will be plenty of time to discuss it at RIPE60 > before it passes to the other RIRs because of its global implications. > [Perhaps an ad-hoc study group is needed to thoroughly research this topic?] > However I feel implementation of this policy proposal will have to wait > until the NCC has been able to support RFC1437. > > -- /TJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20100401/26b1d1bd/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]