[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase Extended (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase Extended (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase Extended (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Mon Nov 27 13:32:44 CET 2017
On 27 November 2017 at 12:26, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote: > > Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" is now in the > extended Review Phase. > > At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the > WG has reached rough consensus. > > <https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum> Hi, I support the policy goals and the amendments to the current policy The only open question I see is if the examples included in the wording are broad enough in terms of scope to enable a clear decision as to whether a "usage" is (or is not) a sub-assignment? For me it's clear but I'm a native bad english speaker and would appreciate confirmation from non-native speakers just to make sure Thx J <https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20171127/342211cb/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase Extended (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase Extended (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]