[address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Good enough?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Good enough?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Good enough?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Mon Sep 23 19:48:44 CEST 2013
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote: … (I did read it all) … > > The TL;DR is that I am now willing to withdraw my objection, but would > ask that you change the title to remove the words "No need", agree to > changes as to how this is presented externally, and to support further > work as part of a new PDP. > I think your point of view is very well expressed, and even sensible. I think your suggestion for going forward is constructive, and will probably mitigate the risk you highlighted from the impact analysis. I don't know what the proper procedure would be for handling this, but you've got my support. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130923/34f31a24/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Good enough?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Good enough?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]