Hi all,
I’ve been too busy to take care of all my emails …
I think David and Scott captured very well my intent. The point was to clarify
in the problem statement “why and when” this problem was generated.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/6/19 20:03, "ARIN-PPML en nombre
I agree with David, that a simple one-word change here would be best, and
we should clarify the problem statement to refer to the "perverse reading"
as "implicit", not "explicit".
I think the "actual" vs. "current" language is just a (fairly common)
translation issue/misunderstanding: as I
I agree with others, the problem statement needs to be simplified and
clarified significantly. Furthermore, the only change in the policy text
needed is to add "authroized" to the current text, as in "authorized third
parties". More provided inline;
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:18 PM ARIN wrote:
I have questions about what is considered in violation with the proposed
wording. See inline comments.
—
Brian Jones
Virginia Tech
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 7:17 PM John Santos wrote:
> On 6/25/2019 05:18 PM, ARIN wrote:
> > On 20 June 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
On 6/25/2019 05:18 PM, ARIN wrote:
On 20 June 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-275:
[...]
When prop-254 (Clarification on IPv6 Sub-assignments), it was not
related, neither intended, to modify the “exclusivity” criterion.
[...]
Huh? This sounds totally garbled to
On 20 June 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-275:
Hijacking Authorization Not-intended" as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2019-15 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_15/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on
