[address-policy-wg] 2018-03 Last Call for Comments (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2018-03 Last Call for Comments (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2018-03 Last Call for Comments (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Daniel Velea
elvis at velea.eu
Thu Aug 30 06:55:52 CEST 2018
Gert, while this was more of a cosmetic change and while this proposal did have support an no objections, I think that 4-5 e-mails of support should have at least required an extended discussion/review phase. Especially since in last call nobody said a word. my 2 cents. Elvis On 8/29/18 14:32, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 07:20:07AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: >> But is there any reasons to comment something? We did it for 2015-01, but >> you declared consensus. > The mail where I declared consensus had a summary and detailed reasoning > why decisions were made. That certain people did not like 2015-01 because > it broke their business model of requesting and quickly selling off /22s > is understandable, but that was the whole point of the change - so yes, > the community ignored those complaints. > > You know quite well that the WG chairs look very closely at the discussion > and see if there is enough support to call it "rough consensus" or not > (and either send the proposal back, or extent the discussion/review phase) > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2018-03 Last Call for Comments (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2018-03 Last Call for Comments (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]