[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Fwd: [WG-BB] IMPORTANT - follow up.
Thank you, Ezura-san.
At 19:24 01/08/08 +0900, Yoshiyuki Ezura wrote:
>Only one big difference is, maybe,
>
>in the TW proposal, regarding business ADSL services depending
>transmission speed, /29 is assigned for under 512K and /29-/27
>are assigned for over 512K
>
>and
>
>in the WG proposal, full technical justification is necessary
>for more than /32 assignment,
So far it is OK. I understand the difference.
>and in addition, if an organigzation
>requests subsequent allocation to cable or xDSL services, some
>informations provided growth rate of subscribers is needed.
What does this mean?
Regards,
Takashi Arano
>Regards,
>
>Yoshiyuki Ezura
>JPNIC
>
>At 16:39 01/08/08 +0900, Takashi Arano wrote:
> >Hi Gerard, how are you?
> >
> >At this time, please add this sentence or equivalent to the proposal
> >according to Obata-san's suggestion.
> >
> >in "Criteria for first allocation to new cable or xDSL services"
> >--------------
> >"Note that the bootstrap phase can be applied for not only startup providers
> >but new services of existing providers"
> >--------------
> >
> >Merging TW and WG proposals may take time. I asked Ezura-san of JPNIC
> >to think this together and we will show you what differences are and
> >what discussion points are soon.
> >
> >So, please modify just this part and make it public as soon as possible.
> >Is anybody OK with this?
> >Thank you very much.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Takashi Arano
> >
> >At 17:46 01/08/06 +1000, Gerard Ross wrote:
> >>Hello Arano-san
> >>
> >>I am happy to do the editing on this document, as I prepared the first draft
> >>for the BB-WG.
> >>
> >>However, I will need a clear indication from the WG and others as to exactly
> >>what issues need to be merged. Perhaps it would help if you could add
> >>comments to the existing documents. Simple dot-points should be fine (rather
> >>than actually re-writing the document).
> >>
> >>I can then try to synthesise these points and circulate the next draft.
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>- Gerard
> >>
> >>
> >>______________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>Gerard Ross, Documentation Manager <gerard@apnic.net>
> >>Asia Pacific Network Information Centre ph +61 7 3367 0490
> >>http://www.apnic.net fx +61 7 3367 0482
> >>______________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: owner-wg-bb@lists.apnic.net [mailto:owner-wg-bb@lists.apnic.net]On
> >> > Behalf Of Takashi Arano
> >> > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 12:50 AM
> >> > To: Anne Lord; wg-bb@apnic.net
> >> > Cc: Chia-Nan Hsieh; yilee@mozart.seed.net.tw
> >> > Subject: Re: Fwd: [WG-BB] IMPORTANT - follow up.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > All,
> >> >
> >> > I am sorry for not responding. I have been very busy since I have
> >> > moved companies.
> >> >
> >> > We have two proposals for the BB issue but I hope to have just
> >> > ONE merged document before the address policy SIG if possible.
> >> > If we had two proposals at the SIG, maybe nothing would be decided there
> >> > and another half year would be spent until the next APNIC meeting.
> >> >
> >> > Now I urgently would like to call for volunteers who will try to
> >> > merge two documents from WG members.
> >> > Maybe the first thing to do is to point out conflicted parts,
> >> > i.e., make clear discussion points.
> >> >
> >> > Meantime, current documents should be public for any opinion from
> >> > the outside.
> >> >
> >> > We do not have much time before Taipei meeting. We have to
> >> > collaborate now.
> >> > Thank you.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Takashi Arano
> >> >
> >> > At 18:33 01/07/18 +1000, Anne Lord wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Wg members,
> >> > >
> >> > >The working group draft revised cable policy is at :
> >> > >
> >> > > > http://www.apnic.net/drafts/cable.html
> >> > > >
> >> > >Some useful comments have been received, and APNIC needs to know
> >> > >exactly how you would like the document to be modified. It would be
> >> > >helpful if you would indicate the exact sections and approximate
> >> > >wording you would like.
> >> > >
> >> > >The proposal by TWNIC is documented at:
> >> > >
> >> > >http://www.apnic.net/temp/twnic-bb-proposal.html
> >> > >
> >> > >No comments have been received on this proposal. How do you wish to
> >> > >proceed. Currently we have both items listed as presentations for
> >> > >the address policy sig. Please see:
> >> > >
> >> > >http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/sigs/address_policy.html
> >> > >
> >> > >APNIC would like to ask the working group for directions on how we
> >> > >should proceed on these two issues. Either way, we need to make papers
> >> > >available for download, one month in advance of our meeting ie. by the
> >> > >29th July which is soon.
> >> > >
> >> > >Look forward to hearing from you.
> >> > >
> >> > >Regards,
> >> > >
> >> > >Anne
> >> > >_____________________________________________________________________
> >> > >Anne Lord, Manager, Policy Liaison <anne@apnic.net>
> >> > >Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3367 0490
> >> > >http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3367 0482
> >> > >_____________________________________________________________________
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > - This list (wg-bb) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net
> >> >
> >
> >-
> >- This list (wg-bb) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net
> >
> >
> >
-
- This list (wg-bb) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net
