Right, what does that mean? Because there were a few only that should be less taken in consideration ? Not sure if you are aware but quantities don't really much much in this forum, but instead it matters if the objection(s) have consistency or make sense when implemented. You said there were a fair amount of objections, which was incorrect. There was one from you and a small number from the JPOPF-ST which have all been addressed. I'm well aware of how the PDP works. Yes they do because these are reasons to justify not having the proposal as there are already solutions and viable options other than create a new policy and adjust APNIC stuff for something that may not be necessary or be created with minimal or no significant gain to the regional community. The objections put were to show that with what we have so far is enough to achieve that is sought by the proposal. If there are already solutions and options why create a new policy ? I'd like to draw your attention to paragraph 2 under section 3 of RFC 7282. "While I agree that protocol Y is more elegant, the risks to interoperability with an untested solution are not worth it compared to the advantages of going with the well-understood protocol X". I've already countered your "just use CGNAT and 464XLAT" argument. Not all issues were addressed and resolved, even if there were few people who raised concerns it wasn't sufficiently explained what gains this proposal will resolve that it is not possible to resolve right now with all the options available considering the technical viable options and the actual IPv4 exhaustion scenario. I've asked you to demonstrate what has been missed or not addressed to which you've failed to do. Again, please do so.
Oh yes, so let's use it only when it is convenient and when not than it is just informational ? This is probably the most important document regarding consensus and the process to evaluate it don't differ much in IETF or PDP Why they should be much different ? Consensus is already something very difficult by nature of subjectivity and still it is understood by yourself that RFC7282 should be disregarded and all left should be the subjectivity in the Chair's mind and the few text in the PDP ? That doesn't sound reasonable in my view. Fernando, in determining consensus the PDP was followed. Your failure to acknowledge what you believe to be or is still unaddressed leads me to believe that there is nothing. Happy to discuss further if you have anything meaningful to add. Regards, Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
