Hi, On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:32:29AM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
Thanks for the pointer. While this is an IETF draft, the principles by which Sander and I try to assert consensus are similar - so while we certainly prefer to reach unanimous agreement (or at least, abstention instead of opposition from those that do not support a proposal), we've had proposals in the past where single individuals very strongly opposed the proposal, but nobody else agreed to their reasoning, and it wasn't possible to convince them that their argument does not hold - so we went ahead nevertheless. For this particular proposal here, Sander and I are reading and listening carefully, and will write a very detailed summary at the end of the review phase... Of course it helps us enormously if those that post their concerns about things, for example, "abuse of the last /8 policy" or "unrestricted trading of addresses", clearly state whether they see this as a consequence of 2013-03 and actually object to 2013-03 because of that (and if yes, which parts of 2013-03, so Tore can answer to that). If we can't see specific opposition to changes brought by 2013-03, we tend to evaluate such statements as "neutral as far as the proposal at hand goes". Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279