Fernando,
in the email list there were a fair amount of objections
The only people who raised concerns on the version that consensus was sort for were yourself and the Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.
some with technical concerns
You were the only one to raise concerns of a technical nature, and even then those concerns were "we can use CGNAT and 464XLAT instead". These do not warrant significant objections to the proposal.
that don't seem to have been answered and/or resolved accordingly.
The title for section 3 of RFC 7282 reads "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated" and all concerns accordingly were addressed. If you feel this was not the case, please do point them out and I'll be happy to do so.
I believe that is quiet important to apply RFC 7282 and point 5.1 of APNIC Policy Development Process guidelines in order to not let a single significant objection opened and unresolved, even if there are people in favor of the proposal and I fell that for this discussion there were points that remained unresolved.
RFC 7282 is for informational purposes (not as a must-follow standard) and was put forward for IETF WGs, not for RIR PDP. Having said that, all processes were followed and all concerns addressed. In gauging consensus the PDP has been adhered to. Again, if you feel that this has not been done please identify what has not been addressed or is still unresolved.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
