I'm agnostic about the latest round of changes or not. I just want EITHER
version to move forward soon!
Owen
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
To the addressed folks who's messages appear below:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There was some objection at the
beginning of this thread by Wes George, Noel Chiappa, and Brian Carpenter. I
agreed that the document could be misunderstood as encouraging the use of the
space as 1918 space and proposed some replacement text. There seemed to be
some agreement around that text. Are you now objecting to that replacement
text and want -14 published as is? Do you think the document should say that
the new allocation can be used as 1918 space? If so, please explain.
pr
On 2/14/12 8:54 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
I also support this draft.
On 2/14/12 9:06 AM, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Daryl Tanner
<daryl(_dot_)tanner(_at_)blueyonder(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
I support this updated draft, and I am keen for this to be published as a
BCP.
+1
I believe the amendments in this revision clarify the usage and intended
purpose of the shared transition space.
+1
On 2/14/12 10:19 AM, Jeff(_dot_)Finkelstein(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
I support this draft as updated.
On 2/13/12 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I support draft-weil as revised. There is a vital need for this to move
forward and the IETF should stop standing in the way and let ARIN allocate
the space already.
On 2/14/12 12:25 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
+1
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf