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+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Daryl Tanner <daryl.tanner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.Finkelstein@xxxxxxx 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