Below, in-line.
Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Gert Doering <[email protected]> Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 17:43 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]> CC: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) Hi, On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:49:58PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > 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. We've been doing this numerous times, and nobody from the community has ever objected to "extending one of the periods to get more discussion going, or more input", or filed a formal appeal based on such procedure. [Jordi] For more than you do the things millions of times, if they are broken one once you realize it, that doesn’t excuse following the procedure one the mistake has been discovered or alternatively, clarifying the procedure. So, please make up your mind what is bothering you - us not following the PDP properly - a policy proposal not to your liking - the PDP as excercised here leading to an outcome not to your liking - your own policy proposal not yet submitted to the machinery, so a somewhat competing (if inferior in your opinion) proposal advancing - the WG chairs beeing bloody idiots (this will change soon anyway) none of this will change our decision, but it would make it more easy to the rest of the readers to understand why you're so angry *right now*, while neither the announcement of the extention nor the voices of support in the four weeks following said announcement seem to have bothered you in the least. [Jordi] I’m not angry at all, I just realized now that the text is not consistent. I think it has been clear in my previous email to Sander. I think now is clear that we all have the same view, but the text don’t look correct to me, unless the NCC don’t care and in the evaluation they will read the arguments of the policy proposal, which I believe are confirming what I’m saying (trying to summarize: up to /64, temporary, not for broadband, not for “permanent” datacenter services). 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 ********************************************** 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.
