|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
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.
On 2/14/12 8:54 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
I also support this draft.
On 2/14/12 9:06 AM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 2/14/12 10:19 AM, Jeff.Finkelstein@xxxxxxx wrote:On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Daryl Tanner <daryl.tanner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I support this updated draft, and I am keen for this to be published as a BCP.+1I believe the amendments in this revision clarify the usage and intended purpose of the shared transition space.+1
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:
-- Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf