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+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Daryl Tanner <daryl.tan...@blueyonder.co.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.finkelst...@cox.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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
