Hi Gert, all,
Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having no
objections, not a “democracy voting”.
I also feel that the way this has been done, extending the discussion, so
allowing the proposer to participate in a conference, and then asking the
participants to “speak
en nombre de Jim
Reid
Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 12:05
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
Asunto: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean
> On 15 Jan 2018, at 10:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
wrote:
>
>
> Obviously, I don’t agree,
Sub-assignment
Clarification)
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having
> no objections, not a “democracy voting”.
APWG aims to follow the IETF approach to consensus, as defined in
rfc7282. This e
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 origi
Hi Marco,
I feel then contradictory this:
2.6 change
Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes) from a subnet
used on a link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a
sub-assignment. This includes for example letting visitors connect to the
assignment holder's
Clarification)
> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
wrote:
>
> I think the PDP has not been followed correctly.
In that case Jordi, you can use the PDP to raise those concerns. Though I
think you're actually complainin
Reid
Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 14:29
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment
Clarification)
> On 15 Jan 2018, at 13:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
wrote:
>
>
:09:27PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> I agree that is not ???unanimity???, but I don???t think there is
consensus on this proposal, and even less I think is fair to extend the review
period ???because??? a proposal has been brought in the last minute to anot
Hi Sander,
My reading of PDP 2.4 is not that we can’t make changes (which I believe are in
the same direction of the proposal, look for my questions below, so no
substantial changes, only making sure that we have in the text what we want).
My reason to re-raise those now, is because they become
Below, in-line.
Saludos,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Sander
Steffann
Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 17:37
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment
Clarification)
Hi,
>
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 matte
MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
Hi Jordi,
> 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 ext
Understood, even do, I will love to heard that from the NCC, because the
disadvantage is that then to interpret the policy text, you need to read “all”
the policy proposals, which I don’t think is very nice or useful.
Despite that, I still believe that my proposed text (or something a bit
light
What I’m trying to avoid is what I read as a contradiction among the policy
text, the argumentation and the impact analysis, so I don’t really care about a
fix number and I agree to let “it free” to avoid technology issues.
According to that, I guess this may work:
“Providing another entity wit
-policy-wg] what does consensus mean
> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
wrote:
>
> Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach
consensus, is just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that
regi
address them.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Jan
Ingvoldstad
Fecha: martes, 16 de enero de 2018, 11:54
Para: RIPE Address Policy WG
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:40 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
LET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
wrote:
>
> 1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare it to
the list (so chairs can measure consensus), do you “agree” only with the
“policy text” or with the arguments written down in the policy proposal, or
wit
de enero de 2018, 18:09
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:40:28AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> 1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare it to
Thanks Malcolm,
I think this is a perfect definition of consensus and it shows that "more
voices" not necessarily means "consensus".
However, I really think, regardless if there are or not objections, consensus
can't be achieved on "non-sense" or "unrealistic" proposals which can't be
enforced
In my opinion there are 3 points to clarify:
1) Temporary always ? clearly not for point-to-point links, no-sense for data
centers?
2) Single address (/128) for a single device (so the device can't use privacy?
Utopia!), or do we allow if the devices get a single-prefix, it uses multiple
addres
Hi all,
I've changed the subject, because I want to talk here in general about our
policy process, not any specific policy.
I've tried to find where in our process, states that in addition to the policy
text itself, other inputs during the PDP matter.
If there is such confirmation, could the N
(sorry Jim ! subject replaced)
Hi Sander,
Below in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Sander
Steffann
Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 12:13
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean
Hi,
What I'm saying is that, if we can't change the policy text, at least we make
sure that those cases are crystal clear in the IA.
Or is that also breaking the PDP?
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Sander
Steffann
Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018
Doering
Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 14:23
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:19:54PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> What I'm saying is that, if
Thanks Marco!
To make it easy, I've prepared an online diff.
https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo
Red color is actual text. Green is the proposed one.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Marco
Schmidt
Fecha: jueves, 22 de febrero de 2018, 15:34
Par
Hi Gert, all,
I agree with your summary, and also understand the point that is better to have
"something" now and improve it.
In fact, yesterday I expressed the same view in anti-abuse, even against my
previous opinion that we should do it "right" in a single "step".
Consequently, in view of i
Thanks Gert!
Further, having no inputs removes all the fun of the PDP!
In case you missed previous emails, to make it easier for you to comment, I've
prepared an on-line diff so you can easily track the proposed changes:
https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo
Also, the complete text of the propo
Hi Janos,
I will be in favor of this policy proposal if it means that those LIRs are
going to contribute to gym cost for end-users (non-LIRs). Have you thought
about that?
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Janos
Zsako
Fecha: domingo, 1 de abril d
Hi all,
As you probably remember, during the discussion of the recently implemented
2016-04, I complained that we should not approve a policy proposal with a
wording that creates (in my opinion), discrepancies between the NCC impact
analysis and the policy text.
I was suggested that it can alw
By the way, forgot something ...
I've created an "online diff" so you can compare the actual text, with my
proposal:
https://www.diffchecker.com/SMXYO2rc
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-
artes, 17 de abril de 2018, 17:14
Para:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment
Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
Hi,
> As you probably remember, during the discussio
Luck [ml]"
Fecha: martes, 17 de abril de 2018, 18:53
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment
Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
Hi Jordi,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:57:20PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-pol
y Proposal (Assignment
Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
Moin,
am 17.04.2018 um 16:51 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
I've also suggested the same text in the other 4 RIRs with equivalent policy
proposal, because all them have the same problem.
>From my point of view, if there
Hi all,
As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in
order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble
boundary.
In the context of another discussion in AfriNIC, Owen DeLong, suggested that we
could do something similar.
I'm consideri
l for IPv6
On 2018 May 02 (Wed) at 07:25:12 -0500 (-0500), JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
:Hi all,
:
:As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy
proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the
nibbl
mayo de 2018, 9:35
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC: RIPE Address Policy WG List
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
Hi,
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:25:12AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> ???As you probably know,
[address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
[2018-05-02 14:26]:
> Note that in the case of RIPE, we have a big difference with the
> other RIRs, because all them start with /32, while we updated our
>
Hi all,
This is a grammar details that doesn’t affect the policy proposal content. I’m
fine either way, but of course, I’m not native English, and the way it is being
used in the document right now, was the suggested NCC format.
So, I will say I’m happy if they choose one way or another,
Hi Iljitsch,
When is this BoF?
I’ve worked in policy proposals to solve this problem in several RIRs, so I
fail to see what further problem do you find.
Anyway, happy to participate and contribute if there is one.
Regards,
Jordi
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de
Iljitsc
Hi all,
I tried to find the "mismatch" that Peter mention today in the meeting about
this proposal text, however was unable to.
So, if Peter or somebody else can point to anything more specific, the authors
will be happy to provide thougths for alternatives to the mismatching text.
Thanks!
R
Hi all,
I've been asked to state what is the problem.
I think it was clear in my slides, but anyway, here we go with all the problems
I see:
1) The current policy text says "Providing another entity with separate
addresses (not prefixes)".
To me this is inconsistent addresses instead of an a
Hi all,
For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at
https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf
I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is
not ju
work as LIR. Canceling the
IPv6 PI would not help to solve this problem, it would make it even worse, by
pushing more and more end users to became LIR when they are actually not one.
Best regards
Martin
Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ v
Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy
- comments from today meeting
On 16.05.2018 14:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been asked to state what is the problem.
>
> I think it was clear in my slides, but anyway, here
f emails on that discussion you will see how difficult may be to clarify that
with a "short" text), or we just put all in the same "class" of addressing
space.
Sincerely,
Martin
Dne středa 16. května 2018 16:10:13 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-
I don't see why this would mean "lower" number of LIRs?
Actually, I think will be the contrary. I think most of the end-users will
become LIRs, especially if the AGM makes a smart move about how to attract them
(fee scheme, contract, etc.).
I don't see also why this would create more disaggrega
all the impolite phrases from it
then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence,
I am against this.
16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg пише:
> Hi all,
>
> For those that haven't been i
,
Martin
Dne středa 16. května 2018 17:45:01 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg napsal(a):
> Below, in-line.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
> -Mensaje original-
> De: address-policy-wg en nombre de
Martin Hu
-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Am 16.05.2018 um 14:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> […]
> I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
> […]
> Thoughts?
To put it in a nutshell, I think you throw
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
Hi,
> PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing.
They are not.
Please, enumerate what are the differences, so we can check one by one.
> There is only one type of Global Unicast Addresses i
I will use [Jordi] to make it clear.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de
Maximilian Wilhelm
Fecha: jueves, 17 de mayo de 2018, 17:36
Para:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
g] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy -
comments from today meeting
Hi there,
on 16.05.2018 17:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> So, to make sure I understood your point. You think that a single /128
prefix is ok to be sub-assigned (as per the current
ey
will probably not start using IPv6 at all. Both would not be a good idea
I think.
Jan Hugo
On 05/16/2018 02:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides a
2018, 12:17
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Hi,
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:07:50PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, it is only to make a *single*
> ca
om /32 and sign LIR contract).
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: Nick Hilliard
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 14:21
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
CC:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> But, I
200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
>I don't see why this would mean "lower" number of LIRs?
>
>Actually, I think will be the contrary. I think most of the end-users will
become LIRs, especially if the AGM makes a smart move about how to attrac
PI
Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI,
Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI".
[Jordi] You're taking the tittle literally. If this is a problem I will find a
better one &qu
licy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
On 2018 May 19 (Sat) at 18:11:39 +0200 (+0200), Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
:Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
:> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI,
:
:Alternative facts? The title says &qu
May be talking directly with ACM/IEEE, so they tell their members to respect
the AUP, and if they don't react, just block any message that has IEEE (telling
IEEE that we will be forced to do so).
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert
Doering
F
Hi all,
Trying to look into my presentation today from a higher-level perspective ...
What is the expected usage of IPv4 and IPv6 PI?
It should be the same or different?
Do we want to use IPv6 PI as an entry point for people, without any
restrictions, to start providing services and then they
Hi all,
Unfortunately, I've not received inputs on my question about what we want to be
allowed in IPv6 PI, but as I'm working on this in other regions, got inputs in
another region, which I think I can translate to this text:
**
2.6. Assign
To "assign" means to delegate address space t
Hi all,
As you know, I've been working on different versions of a clarification to
2016-04 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04).
This proposal allows a single IP to be sub-assigned, and the author explained
(not just in the policy proposal text, but also in the justific
Rgds,
Ray
-----Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg On Behalf Of
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
Sent: 17. tammikuuta 2019 14:13
To: address-policy-wg
Subject: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6
sub-assignment clarification
And I agree with all what you said!
I just want to make sure that we all are in the same page.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Kai
'wusel' Siering
Fecha: jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 15:10
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address
eded, its still available,
apply for a PI v6 subnet from Ripe. (or even become a member).
I hope this helps
Rgds,
Ray
-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg On Behalf
Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
Sent:
agic Mails
Fecha: jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 20:16
Para:
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6
sub-assignment clarification
On 17.01.2019 15:37, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
We need to consider as well, as I depicted already before, that if
ess-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6
sub-assignment clarification
On 17.01.2019 15:37, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
We need to consider as well, as I depicted already before, that if you have a
physical sever, you probably need also multiple addresses for th
Even very low-cost chipsets for CEs, such as Mediatek, Broadcom,
Cavium/Marvell, etc., can offload IPv6 as well.
Sometimes is not the hardware, but the firmware not taking advantage of it.
For IPv6, unless you want pure dual-stack, not the right transition for what is
needed now (IPv6-onl
Sorry, I've not participated in the discussion, but just read all the thread
and the impact analysis, and I'm supporting as well.
Regards,
Jordi
**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
Same here, sorry, I've not participated in the discussion, a bit overloaded
with daily work, but just read all the thread, and I'm supporting it.
Further I can add some data. I've participated in APNIC 47, and prop-127, which
is mention in this proposal, reached consensus.
I've also discussed
Hi all,
I've already drafted a policy proposal to make a change on this, but if I got
it correctly, the chairs were believing that it was not needed, so I never
officially submitted it.
I'm happy to submit it again.
It may be interesting for all the list participants to read my policy proposal
Hi all,
As commented this morning at the end of the WG meeting, I've been thinking
about this issue many times and in fact, in AFRINIC, APNIC and LACNIC, as part
of *other* more complex IPv6 policy proposals, we successfully achieved
consensus on removing the equivalent text.
ARIN has also cha
Hi all,
I keep thinking that ripe-682 (RIPE resource transfer policies), should have a
provision (as it is the case in all the other RIRs), in order to "convert" the
legacy resources to non-legacy, when they got transferred.
I don't really recall if this was discussed during the relevant propos
escribió:
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 01:37:19PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> I keep thinking that ripe-682 (RIPE resource transfer policies), should
have a provision (as it is the case in all the other RIRs), in order to
"convert" t
en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:04:11PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> My personal view but looking for the good of the community is that it is
better to get rid ASAP of the "legacy" status for as muc
jordipalet
El 13/7/19 14:43, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:27:03PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> If legacy holders, want to transfers those resources and escape from
fulf
Hope this explains a bit.
Regards,
Erik Bais
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 13 jul. 2019 om 14:49 heeft JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
het volgende geschreven:
Hi Gert,
If the received of the transfer is already bound by contracts with RIPE, he is
the one that will &qu
Hi Sander,
I was referring to inter-RIR transfers, sorry not having been more explicit.
I understand that the previous policies were only intra-RIR. The actual ones
are both intra and inter.
I don't think it is a matter of respect previous rights, because in that case,
when we do *any* policy
Hi Jim,
El 15/7/19 2:16, "Jim Reid" escribió:
> On 14 Jul 2019, at 22:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
wrote:
>
> I know that every region is different, but we live in a global Internet,
and it is surprising to me that we are the
od for RIPE? I don't
think so, we could keep growing the non-legacy resources, while other regions
get "cleaned".
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 15/7/19 10:05, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Tore Anderson"
escribió:
* Gert Doering
> On Sat, Jul 13, 20
Hi Tore,
El 15/7/19 12:26, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Tore Anderson"
escribió:
* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
> I think my previus email just explained it.
Not really...
> The motivation is my personal view that we have a problem
On 15/07/2019, 11:39, "address-policy-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
via address-policy-wg" wrote:
Hi Tore,
I think my previus email just explained it.
The motivation is my personal view that we have a problem (as a
community) by
Hi Tore,
El 15/7/19 14:02, "Tore Anderson" escribió:
* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
> -> Because I think when there is an unfair situation (some folks bound to
rules/policies, others not), there is a problem.
...
> -> Because is not
I didn't said anything about retroactivity:
- Holders of legacy that don't transfer them, aren't affected.
- Transfers already done (from legacy resources) aren't affected
The only affected ones are "new" transfers (if the policy reach consensus), and
is only affecting the ones that get the reso
mbre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> Again, please consider, if it is good that we are the only RIR not doing
so. I don't think that's good.
If this is the main argu
> Gert Doering wrote at 2019-07-16 10:46:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
>> address-policy-wg wrote:
>>> Again, please consider, if it is good that we are the only RIR not
doing
>>
Hi,
El 17/7/19 18:08, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN"
escribió:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, at 14:02, Tore Anderson wrote:
> In any case, and to be perfectly honest, this rationale reads to like
> petty jealousy to me - «I can't do X with my RIPE ALLOCATED PA, so I
, 2019 at 06:48:46PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> -> I don't think this is "delicate" at all. Nobody is being *forced* to
do that. If you have legacy, you can do transfers outside the system and nobody
can oppose to that. However, please read
about their rationale why they implemented this kind of policy? Maybe
they have some strong arguments we are missing here?
Gert Doering wrote at 2019-07-16 10:46:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
> address-
course and this is just part of
the process to improve our policies.
El 17/7/19 20:15, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:01:44PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> We, as a community, should look for the benefit of
Hi David,
Responding below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 10/10/19 7:01, "address-policy-wg en nombre de David Farmer"
escribió:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:01 AM Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi,
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-06, "Multiple Editorial Changes
Mmmm ... often those conversations are really difficult to catch for non-native
English speakers.
And just in case ... I was not there during the Inquisition, neither, of
course, agree which all the barbarities done at that time.
Also don't agree that any RIR should be the police, is only about
I guess I don't have sufficient time to see enough films of TV shows ...
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 1/11/19 11:52, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet"
escribió:
Jordi,
Ah, the Spanish Inquisition reference is a Month Python reference.
https://en.wikiped
ose expressions. Some folks go away from the thread doing
so, instead of facilitating participation, or if I can say, even inclusiveness.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 1/11/19 12:04, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 01/11/2019 10:5
he last email that you read. Not sure if
that's a broken way, but I do sometimes.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 1/11/19 13:27, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid"
escribió:
> On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
wrote:
1 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
> -Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg On Behalf
> Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
> Sent: Friday 1 November 2
Hi Abdullah,
I don’t think that will be good. In fact, in many cases, we have a hard time to
understand the text of the rest of the policy text if we don’t rely in a very
good set of definitions.
However, I just noticed something that could be removed:
“[Note: some of these definition
in.
Kind regards,
--
Petrit Hasani
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC
> On 13 Jan 2020, at 22:18, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
wrote:
>
> Hi Abdullah,
>
> I don’t think that will be good. In fact, in many cases, we have a
Hi Petrit, all,
I just read them and look fine to me.
Thanks!
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 12/5/20 15:12, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Petrit Hasani"
escribió:
Dear colleagues,
The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 79
have now been publis
After my comment in the Addressing Policy meeting, I decided to go ahead with
this email, maybe it can a provocation for some inputs in the open mic ...
Note that this text is from my AFRINIC proposal (to make it quick now), so
disregard parts that may not correctly matches the RIPE NCC situati
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
