> On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:18, Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is not a real issue, this is just trying to add more bureaucracy for no > reason. +1 IMO this proposal is an utterly pointless and unnecessary make-work exercise. There’s no justification for it.
- Re: [address-policy-wg... Nick Hilliard
- Re: [address-polic... Paul Thornton
- Re: [address-policy-wg] st... Jim Reid
- Re: [address-policy-wg] st... Maximilian Wilhelm
- Re: [address-policy-wg] st... David Farmer via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Aleksey Bulgakov
- Re: [address-policy-wg] st... Daniel Karrenberg
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-policy-wg] st... JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-policy-wg... Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-polic... Jim Reid
- Re: [address-policy-wg... Jim Reid
- Re: [address-policy-wg... Jacob Slater
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Mikael Abrahamsson via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Jim Reid
- Re: [address-policy-wg] st... Kai 'wusel' Siering
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Sebastian Wiesinger
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Daniel Suchy via address-policy-wg
