[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Fri Sep 23 15:24:57 CEST 2011
Hi Nick, >> addressed. We will ask the RIPE NCC to ask for extensive documentation >> in the IPv6 PI request form about why IPv6 PI space is requested instead >> of PA space. > > I didn't see this mentioned in the policy proposal. Could you explain how > this requirement was reached in a way which is compatible with the RIPE > Policy Development Process - i.e. by consensus and in a transparent manner? Someone suggested to include such documentation in IPv6 PI requests. Because this is not actually a policy change (it doesn't change if someone gets the address space or not) but an implementation issue we decided to add it as a note to the RIPE NCC. - 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/20110923/60a629e2/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]