Honestly, I'd prefer the original text over the narrowed scope text. If
I have time between now and APNIC (doubtful at this point), I'll try to
come up with some alternative wording. Otherwise, I'm on the fence about
the proposed changes.
Regards,
Randy.
Randy,
Thanks for your comments. Just for clarity on your position, if the
proposal were changed as discussed with Terence, would you still support
the proposal (in spite of perhaps not liking the resulting narrowness of
scope, as you have written)? Or would you have any suggested wording of
your own which might be a "middle ground"?
Thanks, David
On 9/08/2012 2:46 AM, Randy Whitney wrote:
Hi David,
I support your proposal. I have some minor concerns that can hopefully
be settled in time for the meeting in three weeks, but if not, sobeit.
Like Terence, I had a similar concern about the vagueness of "a
reasonable technical justification". However, I do not wish to strike
the text out completely and replace it with extremely narrow and strict
criteria that would eliminate other unforeseen "reasonable technicial
justification[s]" in the future.
When it comes to our region's need to push rapid IPv6 adoption, IMO it
is better to be more open, at least initially, to allow for much more
rapid adoption, so I would still support your proposal even with the
unaltered text.
Best Regards,
Randy.
