[address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02

Hi guys,

>> Alright I'll bite. I don't think "rough consensus" has been achieved in this case and I think we can do the community a huge favor if the proposal is taken back to the drawing board. As said before, I'm sure that once we agree on what problem
>> we're going to fix, it will be a lot easier to get a policy text in place that will meet consensus.
> 
> The problem with the policy text is that the only textual change in the policy is: the removal of the multi-homed requirement for PI v6. The intention of the policy was (/ is) to bring the requirements for PI v4 and v6 more in line, without changing anything else that you still require or are not allowed to do when you request PI for v6.

We are drifting off topic here. Please don't start discussing the *content* of the proposal. We finished the PDP phases where that was appropriate. At this point in the process we (as chairs) are only concerned if the outcome of those discussions, although not unanimous, can be called consensus.

Thanks,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2084 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111216/47c7b9f1/attachment.p7s>