Hi Sander,

I know Gert and you very well, and I don’t have any doubt that it was not done 
in a “malicious” way, but I think the PDP has not been followed correctly.

Again, is not a matter of this concrete proposal, is a generic concern on the 
PDP application.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Sander Steffann <[email protected]>
Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 13:28
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]>
CC: <[email protected]>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment 
Clarification)

    Hi Jordi,
    
    > I participate on IETF, and I know RFC7282, however I fail to see in our 
PDP that we are bound to that RFC?
    
    As Jim has said, the definition of consensus is determined by consensus :)  
And for this working group the chairs apply consensus roughly based on that RFC.
    
    > I also just read again the PDP, and my understanding is that we are doing 
something different than what the process say, following
    > 
    > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642
    > 
    > I don’t see how a policy proposal that at the end of the review phase 
(maximum 4 weeks), has not reached consensus, as the only alternative is a 
“new” review phase, with a new version of the proposal:
    > 
    > From the PDP:
    > “The WG chair can also decide to have the draft RIPE Document edited and 
start a new Review Phase with a new version of the proposal.”
    
    In RIPE the chairs are allowed to use common sense and their own judgement 
when chairing a working group. Please don't try to make rules for everything, 
we're not lawyers, we're people trying to get work done in the best interests 
of this community.
    
    Cheers,
    Sander
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.





Reply via email to