rmation part will
> be removed from next proposal).
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> --
> Tomohiro Fujisaki
>
>
>
> From: Masato Yamanishi
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further
> consideration
> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:49:12 +0900
>
nment information.
In other mail, we'll explain the case in which Iv4 port range
information will be useful again (but this IPv4 information part will
be removed from next proposal).
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: Masato Yamanishi
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to
Aftab and All,
I'm very sorry that I didn't express myself well in the meeting and in the
report,
(please understand that Adam and I should make this report in 15mins)
but I expect the author to improve prop-115 based on the discussion and the
survey result.
Regards,
Masato Yamanishi
APNIC SIG Ch
I believe, "pushed back to mailing list for discussion" and "returned the
proposal to authors for further consideration" are two different things.
*From Transcript:*
So I need to decide how to proceed with this proposal
itself.
Let me push back this proposal to the mailing list
Skeeve,
2015-09-13 1:03 GMT+09:00 Skeeve Stevens :
> Masato-san,
>
> With the greatest respect for Tomohiro-san and Ruri-san and yourself, I am
> very disappointed with your decision to return prop-115 to the list AGAIN
> for discussion and for a survey.
>
It is up to you being disappointed wit
I agree.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I do not support the proposal.
>
> Contorting policy around the abomination that is CGN instead of
> recognizing that no amount of policy or other contortion will preserve
> usability in IPv4 and just getting on with the business of
I do not support the proposal.
Contorting policy around the abomination that is CGN instead of recognizing
that no amount of policy or other contortion will preserve usability in IPv4
and just getting on with the business of making IPv6 deployment ubiquitous is
counterproductive for the interne
Hi ,
Actually i'm also thinking why this is important ? or why we are trying to
mapping port with addressing specially in IPv4? I think their are so many
reasons not support this proposal specially by considering technical
feasibility and scalability .
Just one question for my personal understand
Hi,
Speaking as a non-region participants and haven looked through the APNIC
PDP[1], it does seem that if there is no consensus on a proposal, it needs
to be discussed in other to determine if a proposal should be withdrawn or
not. I quote the relevant section below:
"If there is no consensus
I do not support this proposal, and consider that such data is largely
irrelevant, likely to be prone to inaccuracies and technically infeasible
to manage on an ongoing basis or practically implement the filtering
described in the proposal.
If individual providers which to disclose such informatio
Masato-san,
With the greatest respect for Tomohiro-san and Ruri-san and yourself, I am
very disappointed with your decision to return prop-115 to the list AGAIN
for discussion and for a survey.
You asked for consensus on a Survey and asked who was FOR it - no one (I
can see)... who was AGAINST -
Dear colleagues
Version 3 of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information
in whois DB, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 40 Open
Policy Meeting.
The Policy SIG Chair requested the Secretariat conduct further research
into the problem statement and returned the proposal to the auth
12 matches
Mail list logo
