Dear all,
thank you Erik for providing this helpful summary - although I do not think
I was quite as indefinite in my concerns as you put in your summary :)
I'll keep it simple and straightforward this time to prevent any confusion.
1) There is no need to restructure our set of policies based
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016, at 17:30, Erik Bais wrote:
> As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. )
[x] yes, this makes sense, go there
If anything minor needs adjustment, it can be done afterwards. The way
it is today, the policy is clearly better than the existing status quo.
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 05:30:55PM +0100, Erik Bais wrote:
> As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. ) I would
> like to ask the AP-WG Chairs if they agree to add at least 2 weeks
> additional time to the discussion time to make sure that all pros and cons
> are
Hi,
As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. ) I would
like to ask the AP-WG Chairs if they agree to add at least 2 weeks
additional time to the discussion time to make sure that all pros and cons
are discussed.
Currently we are looking at an objection from Remco v. Mook
Hello all,
Just before the review phase ends, I'd like to express my agreement with
this proposal.
[X] yes, this makes sense, go there
Keeping all transfer policies in a single document is much more convenient
than searching within scattered documents.
I also strongly support Remco's
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:00:53PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> [X] I think we should be organizing this differently, and totally not
> group the policy documents "by activity" but "by resource" (= transfer
> policy section in the IPv4, IPv6 and AS number policy documents)
while I
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 08:55:45PM +0100, Erik Bais - A2B Internet wrote:
The policy proposal states :
> 2.2 Transfer Restrictions
> Scarce resources, which are understood as those resources that
> are allocated or assigned >by the RIPE NCC on
Hello,
[X ] yes, this makes sense, go there
I'm happy with the proposal and the approach and would also agree with
Remco's suggestion of the reference in the existing documents, that
would make perfect sense.
Guy
On 03/02/16 18:00, Gert Doering wrote:
Dear Working Group,
On Wed, Feb 03,
Hi Sascha & Daniel,
The reason for using the term "scares resource", is because we can't/shouldn't
use the term "depleted'..
If one would use the term "Depleted' the NCC might say that the pool isn't
completely empty yet.. so it isn't depleted yet..
Which would mean that there is, until it
On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 02:54:33PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
[x] yes, this makes sense, go there
+1 However: I'd like to see a paragraph defining which resources are
"scarce resources" That way, it is immediately clear which
resources are covered by hold times etc, and more importantly
there
* Gert Doering
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 02:59:06PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> > The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04,
> > "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
> > have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the
> > RIPE NCC.
>
> So this
Dear colleagues,
The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04,
"RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the
RIPE NCC.
The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all
relevant information
Dear Working Group,
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 02:59:06PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04,
> "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
> have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the
> RIPE NCC.
So this is the
Hi all,
(all hats off)
While I am highly sympathetic to harmonising transfer policies across all
resources, I object to the proposal as written.
The really short reason is as follows (and I quote)
[The following policy will replace:
- Sections 5.5 and 6.4 in ripe-649, "IPv4 Address
Hello working group,
> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
Thanks to Marco and the rest of the RIPE NCC for this extensive impact analysis.
This impact analysis uncovers a very serious issue that has slipped
Dear Colleagues,
we have all to thank Eric for the hard work done. When the proposal
apperead I thought it was good and would approve such content.
In its essence is really fair and clean but the matter is highly
complicated.
I agree with the board and even Eric evaluated this kind of
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:58:36PM +0200, Nigel Titley wrote:
> > If there is consensus otherwise to go forward, this will need a textual
> > change that very clearly states in no unclear terms what can be done
> > (and by omission, what can not be done), and another impact analysis - so,
> >
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 08:44:17PM +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> > This is a serious issue that will affect all of us. The chairs take this
> > issue into the consensus-reaching process and we ask the authors and
> > working group to address this.
>
> I didn't anticipate this issue, either,
18 matches
Mail list logo
