I think the current text isn’t really a problem because reasonable people apply
a reasonable interpretation of intent rather than the literal meaning.
The proposal brings literal meaning more in line with well understood intent.
While I don’t believe there is an actual problem to solve here,
For now, I'm neither for or against this proposal. I think the intention of the
author is good but the implementation is not as easy as is explained in the
proposal. QoS is very crucial for ISPs to sustain the fierce market competition
and if APNIC fails to timely update the AS0 ROAs, this will
Dear Sir,
Also, Requesting to the Author to represent the Proposal with Example and
Graphical Representation.
The example should have comparison with Present situation and the Propose
Solution of the problem.
- with regards
SIMON.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 8:33 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote:
>
Dear Sir,
Requesting to the Author to represent the Proposal with Example and
Graphical Representation.
The example should have comparison with Present situation and the Propose
Solution of the problem.
- with regards
SIMON.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:59 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote:
>
> Dear
I do not support this proposal. Intention is good but no one is really
concerned nor can verify this in practice. I think the current policy text is
good.
Kind regards
Javed Khan
MSCE and CCSP
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
on behalf of Sumon Ahmed
I support this proposal. Thanks to Jordi for continuously working to simplify
the policy text.
Kind regards
Javed Khan
MSCE and CCSP
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 5:59 PM
To: Policy SIG
I do not support this proposal as I have complete trust in the current APNIC
PDP and this community.
Kind regards
Javed Khan
MSCE and CCSP
From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net
on behalf of Sumon Ahmed Sabir
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 2:13 AM
To: Policy
