[address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sat Dec 15 13:13:56 CET 2012
Hi, On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 01:06:27PM +0100, Dan Luedtke wrote: > I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear. > > Can't we just say n days instead of month? > With n being 30* days? So, do you want to see this policy implemented quickly, or do you want to paint a bikeshed instead? I think "one month" is perfectly fine. In practice, it would not make a difference whether this is 30 or 31 days, and I'm sure the NCC would be reasonable if February is involved - but even 28 days is better than 7 days (what we have now). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]