Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Dear all, I support this proposal. I would once again urge that the default view in the PDP process should be diffs. While I could find diffs between proposal versions on the PDP site, there was no obvious way to diff current text against current proposal version. Richard
Richard Hartmann wrote:
I would once again urge that the default view in the PDP process should be diffs. While I could find diffs between proposal versions on the PDP site, there was no obvious way to diff current text against current proposal version.
There were easy-to-follow diffs here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft Nick
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft
Thank you. It's not the case here, but it was the case in the past, that the actual diff and this curated overview differed. This is why I personally prefer autogenerated diffs and the well established workflows around code review. Credit where credit is due: The link above is correct down to every last full stop, newline, and whitespace. I checked. Richard
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
I support this proposal.
To qualify my +1, while I do get the argument that this will not entirely stop hogging and speculation, it's at least a step in the right direction. Even considering Ricardo's emails, I don't see a hard argument against this proposal as it's easily possible to set up the downstream LIR earlier if they anticipate the need, anyway. To me, the pros outweigh the possible cons, and it's an overall improvement. Richard
-1 for the proposal If anything, better implement a policy which forces the (big players) to return their (huge amounts) of unused space, as briefly discussed a year ago: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-October/01076... https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-October/01075... Just start by grabbing all ips currently listed on the marketplace and shut it down ;-) BTW: How much money was and is invested in building and maintaining the marketplace? Corin On 20.10.2016 12:07, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
I support this proposal.
To qualify my +1, while I do get the argument that this will not entirely stop hogging and speculation, it's at least a step in the right direction.
Even considering Ricardo's emails, I don't see a hard argument against this proposal as it's easily possible to set up the downstream LIR earlier if they anticipate the need, anyway.
To me, the pros outweigh the possible cons, and it's an overall improvement.
Richard
Hi, On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:26:21PM +0200, Netskin NOC wrote:
If anything, better implement a policy which forces the (big players) to return their (huge amounts) of unused space, as briefly discussed a year ago:
This is a separate discussion, and should not be done under the Subject: of 2016-03. Folks, I understand that e-mail is hard. But give it a try. 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 20.10.2016 12:30, Gert Doering wrote:
This is a separate discussion, and should not be done under the Subject: of 2016-03.
Folks, I understand that e-mail is hard. But give it a try.
I know and thus didn't start a discussion about the topic, I just suggested it...probably by reviving the old thread I mentioned. Cheers Corin
On 2016 Oct 20 (Thu) at 12:38:55 +0200 (+0200), Netskin NOC wrote: :On 20.10.2016 12:30, Gert Doering wrote: :>This is a separate discussion, and should not be done under the Subject: :>of 2016-03. :> :>Folks, I understand that e-mail is hard. But give it a try. : :I know and thus didn't start a discussion about the topic, I just suggested :it...probably by reviving the old thread I mentioned. : THEN CHANGE THE SUBJECT! This isn't rocket science, or even science at all. -- When Marriage is Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Inlaws.
participants (5)
-
Gert Doering -
Netskin NOC -
Nick Hilliard -
Peter Hessler -
Richard Hartmann