Hi, On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:12:59AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Sorry, I thought that you also consider the opinions in the meeting, so just > repeating myself, I???m against this proposal.
I find my "before we enter discussion" slide on this quite unambiguous.
The discussion at the meeting is relevant to get a feel for the room,
and help the proposer to get guidance in which direction the proposal
should be developed. For the sake of openness and transparency, the
*list* is what is relevant.
But besides that, your statement is not helping. You have voiced support
at the May meeting for the general proposal, and now oppose "the proposal",
without further qualifying. So what, do you support loosening up the
IPv6 PI policy, and just do not agree with the v2.0 wording, or do you
generally oppose any move into that direction?
> I know, a policy can probably never be perfect at once, but I
> will prefer, in this case, having a better solution than an
> intermediate step to a better one, as otherwise we are complicating
> the interpretation of many other aspects in the overall IPv6 policy.
There are no perfect policies. There are workable compromises that
iteratively get adjusted to changed community requirements.
The IPv6 PI policy is a good example: it's a compromise, because we
did not know 10+ years ago what a "perfect!" policy would have looked
like (and 10+ years ago, what people assumed would be needed is
different from the landscape today)
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
