Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?

Hi Elvis, > On 20 Jun 2016, at 12:53 , Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > > Hi Gert, > > I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than > the proposer :) Since I'm the proposer I might as well respond. You know full well I'm capable of defending myself in

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?

Hi, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 01:53:29PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than > the proposer :) I'm trying to not side either way, but the poor quality of some of the arguments is annoying me enough to try to counter them. > > On

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?

* Elvis Daniel Velea [2016-06-20 12:57]: > Hi Gert, > > I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than > the proposer :) > > > On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:33, Gert Doering > [...] > > (Regarding the DB accuracy, I think Sander has answered this

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?

Well said! Regards, Radu Gheorghiu On 06/20/2016 01:53 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: Hi Gert, I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than the proposer :) On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:33, Gert Doering [...] (Regarding the DB accuracy, I think Sander has

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?

Hi Gert, I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than the proposer :) > On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:33, Gert Doering [...] > (Regarding the DB accuracy, I think Sander has answered this upthread > in a way I find convincing: if trading for these /22s is