Hi David, Honestly, I'd prefer the original text over the narrowed scope text. If I have time between now and APNIC (doubtful at this point), I'll try to come up with some alternative wording. Otherwise, I'm on the fence about the proposed changes. Regards, Randy. On 8/12/2012 3:57 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
Randy, Thanks for your comments. Just for clarity on your position, if the proposal were changed as discussed with Terence, would you still support the proposal (in spite of perhaps not liking the resulting narrowness of scope, as you have written)? Or would you have any suggested wording of your own which might be a "middle ground"? Thanks, David On 9/08/2012 2:46 AM, Randy Whitney wrote:Hi David, I support your proposal. I have some minor concerns that can hopefully be settled in time for the meeting in three weeks, but if not, sobeit. Like Terence, I had a similar concern about the vagueness of "a reasonable technical justification". However, I do not wish to strike the text out completely and replace it with extremely narrow and strict criteria that would eliminate other unforeseen "reasonable technicial justification[s]" in the future. When it comes to our region's need to push rapid IPv6 adoption, IMO it is better to be more open, at least initially, to allow for much more rapid adoption, so I would still support your proposal even with the unaltered text. Best Regards, Randy.
- Prev by Date: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted
- Next by Date: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted
- Previous by thread: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted
- Next by thread: Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversion posted