Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration

To: myamanis at gmail dot com
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration
From: (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎智宏) <fujisaki at syce dot net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:51:56 +0900 (JST)
Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <CALcH-8nrUFT6+ZW=FHMC7mwmccf0XPGJUr=bZe_ijqRarxaNtw at mail dot gmail dot com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>

Yamanishi-san,

 | but I expect the author to improve prop-115 based on the discussion and the
 | survey result.

Sure. We'll revise our policy draft, as discussed at Jakarta.

We had some opposite opinion to provide IPv4 port information, but
had some interests to provide IPv6 assignment information.

In other mail, we'll explain the case in which Iv4 port range
information will be useful again (but this IPv4 information part will
be removed from next proposal).

Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki



From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:49:12 +0900

 | Aftab and All,
 | 
 | I'm very sorry that I didn't express myself well in the meeting and in the
 | report,
 | (please understand that Adam and I should make this report in 15mins)
 | but I expect the author to improve prop-115 based on the discussion and the
 | survey result.
 | 
 | Regards,
 | Masato Yamanishi
 | APNIC SIG Chair
 | 
 | 2015-09-14 22:13 GMT+09:00 Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com>:
 | 
 | >
 | > I believe, "pushed back to mailing list for discussion" and "returned the
 | > proposal to authors for further consideration" are two different things.
 | >
 | > *From Transcript:*
 | >
 | >     So I need to decide how to proceed with this proposal
 | >
 | >     itself.
 | >
 | >         Let me push back this proposal to the mailing list
 | >
 | >     and also ask to have such survey to the AMM this
 | >
 | >     evening.  Is it okay?
 | >
 | >
 | > *From AMM Report:*
 | >
 | >
 | > [image: Screenshot 2015-09-14 23.07.34.png]
 | >
 | >
 | >>
 | >> Version 3 of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information
 | >> in whois DB, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 40 Open
 | >> Policy Meeting.
 | >>
 | >> The Policy SIG Chair requested the Secretariat conduct further research
 | >> into the problem statement and returned the proposal to the authors for
 | >> further consideration.
 | >>
 | >>
 | > Best Wishes,
 | >
 | > Aftab A. Siddiqui.
 | >