Hi Jordi,
You're right! We haven't been able to enable DMARC on our mailman due to a
number of dependencies and
risks but we are looking into migrating to a new server soon.
Regards
Sunny
On 15/05/2019 1:19 am, Srinivas Chendi wrote:
Thanks Jordi.
FYI, consulting with our technical team about
Thanks Jordi.
FYI, consulting with our technical team about this.
Regards
Sunny
On 15/05/2019 12:20 am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi Aftab,
>
> If you don’t get my emails in the list, it may be due to DMARC. Email
> servers (such as mine), using DMARC, may get rejected by clients of
> mai
To: Sumon Ahmed Sabir
Cc: mailman_SIG-policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter
Dear Sumon and all,
To reduce confusion over ISP/LIR/etc terminology, perhaps the charter could be
stated more simply, along these lines:
“The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which
Hi Sunny,
I understand that, however, that's the reason for having a proper charter, so
the chairs have a "base" to take a decision.
If the text of the charter is not clear, then even if they want to accept a
policy proposal, they can't.
Regards,
Jordi
El 14/5/19 15:15, "Srinivas Chendi"
Hi Aftab,
If you don’t get my emails in the list, it may be due to DMARC. Email servers
(such as mine), using DMARC, may get rejected by clients of mailing lists if
the mailing list is keeping my email instead of using the list one.
It may happen that the APNIC list is not correctly confi
I guess I confused you.
I was not mixing two things. One example was the PDP update in APNIC (or other
regions), another example was the rejection because considered out-of-scope of
the "resource hijacking proposal".
Regards,
Jordi
El 14/5/19 16:08, "Owen DeLong" escribió:
My own op
Hi Jordi,
You can always bring any topic to apnic-talk mailing list for discussion.
Not everything has to be discussed on policy-sig mailing list.
And somehow I’m not receiving your emails sent to the policy-sig mailing
list :)
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 11:15 pm, Srinivas Chendi wrote:
> Hi Jordi,
My own opinion only and not speaking on behalf of or for the AC...
In the case of ARIN, your proposal was not to modify the PDP and addressed
primarily the detailed operational practices of ARIN staff. It did not address
the administration and registration of number resources, but rather the
be
Hi Jordi,
Thanks for your contribution to this discussion so far.
As per the SIG Guidelines, Policy SIG Chair is responsible to accept or
reject a proposal and to check if it is in scope of the active SIG charter.
Please refer to the section 2.4 of SIG Guidelines
https://www.apnic.net/community
I’m not interpreting the PDP as part of that, however, I’m fine if the staff
confirms that it is in-scope according to their understanding.
We have a recent experience of policies (resource hijacking is a policy
violation) being declared out-of-scope in ARIN by the AC. I know the PDP is
very
Dear all,
I agree with Paul statement .“The Policy SIG charter is to develop
policies which relate to the management and use of Internet address
resources within the Asia Pacific region".
if service related to address is concern then it can be like that " The
Policy SIG charter is to develop po
> On May 11, 2019, at 06:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> wrote:
>
> Just to make it clear. Do you believe that the PDP update is out of the scope?
>
No
> I think that the PDP is not related to resource management, but the
> “self-management” of the way the community discusses the resource manag
Just to make it clear. Do you believe that the PDP update is out of the scope?
I think that the PDP is not related to resource management, but the
“self-management” of the way the community discusses the resource management
and agree on the way it should be managed.
And for me as more we
That’s not more generic, Jordi, it’s just more words.
There’s nothing within the scope of the policy manual or its updates that
doesn’t relate to the management and use of internet address resources.
Owen
> On May 10, 2019, at 09:30 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, all,
>
> I
Hi Paul, all,
I feel that this proposed charter is not good enough.
Let me try to explain it.
In RIPE we have a WG for every kind of “topic”, for example, addressing, abuse,
routing, etc. The PDP updates are discussed in the “plenary” (we have recent
small update and this was not real
Works for me.
Owen
> On May 9, 2019, at 20:50 , Paul Wilson wrote:
>
> Dear Sumon and all,
>
> To reduce confusion over ISP/LIR/etc terminology, perhaps the charter could
> be stated more simply, along these lines:
>
> “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the manag
Thanks Paul,
This addresses all my concerns.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 1:51 PM Paul Wilson wrote:
> Dear Sumon and all,
>
> To reduce confusion over ISP/LIR/etc terminology, perhaps the charter
> could be stated more simply, along these lines:
>
> “The Policy SIG cha
Hi Owen,
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:52 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language.
>
> First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to
> members at all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one
> change I think should be made there
Dear Sumon and all,
To reduce confusion over ISP/LIR/etc terminology, perhaps the charter could be
stated more simply, along these lines:
“The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management
and use of Internet address resources within the Asia Pacific region. …”
My 2
Thank you very much Aftab and Owen for your constructive feedback. We will
definitely consider those views.
If any one has any different perspective please jump in and share
your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Sumon
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Aftab, I think you misread the p
Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language.
First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to members at
all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one change I think
should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not all LIRs are
technically ISP
Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative,
Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs
only, I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders
in Asia Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders.
Secondly, when you start mentioning to
22 matches
Mail list logo
