I try to go beyond the 2015-05: When an LIR can claim to have reached 4 (or 5) stars of RIPEness for IPv6 may require an additional /22 (if you do not already have space equivalent to a /20) stating its reasons for the new allocation with a project and proving to have it completed within one year.
This new /22 will in no way be transferred before 3-5 years. I tried to remove the term of 18 months: what do you think about? Regards, Enrico Diacci. it.tsnet -----Messaggio originale----- Da: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Per conto di Jim Reid Inviato: mercoledì 11 maggio 2016 10:05 A: Riccardo Gori Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG Oggetto: [address-policy-wg] making progress with 2015-05 > On 11 May 2016, at 08:53, Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> wrote: > > Sander noticed there are people here that are confirming that a change > is accepted and someone else noticed that 2015-05 can be re-written or > re-invented to meet better the tasks You as a chair should accept this > and should help the community to understand how to follow up with a > reasonable solution The WGs co-chairs have not expressed an opinion on this proposal. This is to be expected since they have to make the consensus determination if 2015-05 reaches that point. Others have pointed out flaws and raised substantial objections. These issues have not been answered, let alone resolved. Supporters of 2015-05 should accept this and should help the community to understand how to follow up with a reasonable solution. Were waiting. PS: Apologies for a relevant and meaningful Subject: header.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
