Profil de personne
PersonneJordi Palet Martinez est suivi comme personne, avec des elements qui eclairent son identite, son role ou son contexte operationnel.
Les données disponibles couvrent Rôles: author (The IPv6 Company).
Appuie l'identite, le role ou le contexte organisationnel de Jordi Palet Martinez.
public people profile
Dernière mise à jour: 2026-09-28
Faits sourcés
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The author acknowledges that the proposal copied text from his RIPE draft and says to replace RIPE NCC with AFRINIC. That is a specific clarification of intended regional applicability, not an explicit vote on all provisions and not evidence of a changed position over time.
Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author acknowledges that the proposal copied text from his RIPE draft and says to replace RIPE NCC with AFRINIC. That is a specific clarification of intended regional applicability, not an explicit vote on all provisions and not evidence of a changed position over time.
Réserves: The clarification does not by itself verify that the published draft was amended or adopted.
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.
This happened in the policy because the text was taken from my proposal to RIPE NCC and we didn't reviewed accurately all the text.
Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations · IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · Correcting the region named in a 2006 eligibility clause and arguing for justified organizational eligibility in a distinct 2007 proposal are compatible but not directly comparable acts. The source record does not support either a contradiction claim or a strong longitudinal-consistency claim across the two proposals.
Réserves: The proposals have separate source identities and must not be merged solely because both concern IPv6 PI. · No position is inferred from text quoted from another author.
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The author treats organizational use as a good justification for direct resources and warns that widespread individual assignments could impose routing costs even when address space itself is sufficient. The express qualification for justified cases prevents reading this as an absolute ban on every individual assignment. One message cannot establish whether that preference persisted or changed.
IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author treats organizational use as a good justification for direct resources and warns that widespread individual assignments could impose routing costs even when address space itself is sufficient. The express qualification for justified cases prevents reading this as an absolute ban on every individual assignment. One message cannot establish whether that preference persisted or changed.
Réserves: The population and router-cost figures are illustrative assertions by the author, not verified measurements. · This concerns IPv6 PI assignment eligibility, not a stance on the separately documented AFRINIC policy-development-process proposal. · The earlier July 2006 clarification is now linked to the separately recovered afpol-v60604 proposal; it is not an earlier version of this verified policy corpus.
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).
Is not only about the addressing space, which probably could perfectly cope with that for 100% of the world population if using /48, but what about the routing slots ?
We need a balance here.
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
Palet demande que la question controversée de l'attribution à des fins expérimentales soit débattue au sein du Policy SIG élargi. Il n'affirme pas qu'un consensus existe déjà et n'exprime pas de vote définitif sur la règle d'attribution. Cette seule intervention procédurale ne permet pas d'établir un changement de position.
Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · Palet demande que la question controversée de l'attribution à des fins expérimentales soit débattue au sein du Policy SIG élargi. Il n'affirme pas qu'un consensus existe déjà et n'exprime pas de vote définitif sur la règle d'attribution. Cette seule intervention procédurale ne permet pas d'établir un changement de position.
Réserves: Demander que le consensus soit déterminé ne constitue pas une preuve qu'il a été atteint.
it is neccesary to have the discussion in a broader community, the Policy SIG.
Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4 · Recovery of unused historical resources
Évaluation: Cohérent · Solliciter une délibération communautaire plus large sur une proposition et l'éclairage spécialisé du secrétariat sur une autre constitue deux démarches compatibles pour combler des lacunes différentes dans la prise de décision. Aucun des messages ne confère au secrétariat le pouvoir de se substituer au consensus communautaire. La comparaison étaye une compatibilité procédurale, et non un même vote sur le fond des deux politiques.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
Concernant la récupération des ressources historiques, Palet sollicite l'avis du secrétariat, notamment sur les questions juridiques. Cette demande d'information laisse ouverte la décision de fond sur la récupération ; elle ne vaut pas approbation d'une interprétation juridique particulière.
Recovery of unused historical resources
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · Concernant la récupération des ressources historiques, Palet sollicite l'avis du secrétariat, notamment sur les questions juridiques. Cette demande d'information laisse ouverte la décision de fond sur la récupération ; elle ne vaut pas approbation d'une interprétation juridique particulière.
Réserves: Les éléments fournis ne contiennent ni réponse ultérieure ni préférence finale explicite en matière de politique.
especially the legal aspects. May be in this case, is not just the chairs but the secretariat who should provide some inputs.
Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4 · Recovery of unused historical resources
Évaluation: Cohérent · Solliciter une délibération communautaire plus large sur une proposition et l'éclairage spécialisé du secrétariat sur une autre constitue deux démarches compatibles pour combler des lacunes différentes dans la prise de décision. Aucun des messages ne confère au secrétariat le pouvoir de se substituer au consensus communautaire. La comparaison étaye une compatibilité procédurale, et non un même vote sur le fond des deux politiques.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.
Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.
Réserves: Support for this limited change does not endorse a separate size change or every later draft.
Mi idea en esta propuesta es SOLO tocar los dos puntos indicados.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Évaluation: Cohérent · From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.
Réserves: The initial willingness to withdraw depended on staff confirming that the existing rule already permitted the case; it was not an actual March withdrawal. · The later report of community consensus is not independent evidence of final ratification or implementation. · Claims about government allocations and regional experience are the author's examples and assertions.
Y creo que no es conveniente tener tantas pol?ticas como ?casos?.
Mi propuesta pretende aclarar esta situacion, con una categoria nueva diferente de ISP, aunque es muy similar a un ISP.
que evitamos con un solo mecanismo para justificar los recursos
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Évaluation: Cohérent · The November correction changes the stated horizon from the organization's life expectancy to the allocation's expected longevity. The author acknowledges an overlooked drafting error and explains why the latter better bounds the addressing plan. This is a real correction with an explanation, not evidence that every earlier version already said the same thing.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Évaluation: Cohérent · The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.
Réserves: This entails a change from preserving the commercial-ISP time limit to accepting a common mechanism; the design preference did evolve. · The source describes community consensus, not proof of all subsequent implementation steps.
Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.
Por supuesto que la idea no es que se aprueben las dos, sino una u otra.
v?lido para ambos casos.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Évaluation: Cohérent · The separate-category and common-rule proposals are competing mechanisms for the same planning objective. The author expressly presents them as alternatives, then explains abandoning the more complex category approach after the common rule received community support. The record documents a reasoned change in preferred mechanism rather than simultaneous contradictory commitments.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.
Rectifying the size of initial allocations
Évaluation: Cohérent · The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.
Réserves: The residential /64 remark is a reductio, not a recommendation to reduce customer assignments. · The /33 example and worldwide adoption fraction are not independently established technical or statistical evidence. · Future contiguous allocations are not guaranteed.
No se trata de evitar que haya ?nuevas asignaciones? en el futuro, pero si dar la oportunidad de ?corregir? la primera por una sola vez.
ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.
ahora pague por ello el cliente.
Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS
Évaluation: Cohérent · The initial-correction discussion explicitly leaves end-user inclusion open if cases are raised. The later welcome for an end-user correction mechanism is compatible with that openness and with the repeated concern about avoidable renumbering; it is not a reversal from categorical exclusion of end users.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.
Évaluation: Cohérent · The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.
Réserves: The comparative timing list is supplied by another participant. · The claimed benefits of avoiding meeting delays are advocacy, not measured outcomes.
creo que 30 d?as naturales ser?a suficiente y siempre m?s f?cil de contar.
Me refuerza en mi punto de vista de 30 d?as.
la decisi?n del consenso (igual que en IETF) se toma en la lista, no en el meeting
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP
Évaluation: Cohérent · The 2017 preference for list-based consensus carries into the later PDP redesign and its equal-participation rationale. Details do change: the earlier preference is 30 calendar days, while the later outline gives a four-week last call. The later emphasis on inclusion rather than speed narrows the stated priority without negating the earlier observation that meetings can delay a decision.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.
MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.
Réserves: The suggested wording is a proposal, not evidence that it was incorporated into an adopted text.
Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.
que si lo desea renumere ahora en lugar de luego
Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS
Évaluation: Cohérent · The initial-correction discussion explicitly leaves end-user inclusion open if cases are raised. The later welcome for an end-user correction mechanism is compatible with that openness and with the repeated concern about avoidable renumbering; it is not a reversal from categorical exclusion of end users.
Réserves: The two proposals address different recipient classes. · The emails do not independently establish the frequency of end-user cases.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.
Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.
Réserves: The quoted announcement distinguishes consensus from pending board ratification; the author's shorthand about approval does not prove implementation.
Mi propuesta simplemente incorpora *el mismo* texto que se aprob? para las distribuciones iniciales en las distribuciones subsiguientes
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6
Évaluation: Cohérent · Support for a common initial-allocation rule is followed by advocacy of matching subsequent-allocation criteria, expressly to avoid disadvantaging earlier recipients. These are complementary positions on the same planning issue.
Réserves: The comparison concerns the author's rationale, not proof of ratification or deployment.
v?lido para ambos casos.
dejar?a en desventaja a quien haya obtenido una distribuci?n inicial *antes* de la reciente aprobaci?n del cambio.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.
Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option)
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.
Réserves: The definition quoted from the PDP is attributed material; the author's explicit endorsement is the evidence of his position. · No stance on an unrelated later proposal follows from the discussion.
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra", cuando en realidad quiere decir que no haya objeciones que no sean respondidas.
Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option) · Simplification of the PDP
Évaluation: Cohérent · The later explanation that consensus is not a count of votes matches the earlier PDP reform argument for evaluating substantive objections and including list participants. No reversal of that conception of consensus is shown.
Réserves: Endorsement of this principle does not establish agreement with every procedural provision.
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra"
definir "consenso" (que no es un cuenteo de votos).
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.
Réserves: The alignment with IPv6 is his stated rationale. · Neither the split nor the request for feedback establishes consensus on this component.
La LAC-2018-11, simplemente elimina el requisito de multihoming para IPv4 para ser usuario final
Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users · Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
Évaluation: Cohérent · The author explains dividing the combined end-user proposal into transfer and multihoming components after community feedback. Supporting both as separate proposals is coherent; it does not imply either had been adopted.
Réserves: This is an explicitly described change in proposal structure, not an inferred change from a shared subject line.
afrontara cada problema con una propuesta especifica y as? lo hice ese mismo d?a.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.
Réserves: A proposed revision or offered new version is not proof of adoption. · The rule being discussed is a failed-consensus restart, not the length of last call.
Luego, bajo mi punto de vista, es *redundante* poner que se reinician los plazos.
En cualquier caso, se reiniciar?a el plazo de debate de 8 semanas.
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.
Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.
Réserves: Authorship and assistance with presentation are not endorsement of every unseen change.
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo), y la de la derecha (color verde), como quedar?a con los cambios que propongo.
Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual
Évaluation: Cohérent · Providing a policy diff and later favoring side-by-side comparisons show a compatible preference for making textual changes easier to inspect. That narrow presentation preference supplies no evidence of consistency on the substantive IPv6 or resource-recovery provisions.
Réserves: Only the presentation practice is compared here.
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)
Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.
Registration and validation of abuse contact
Évaluation: Cohérent · Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.
Réserves: The final interval and precise consequences of failed validation are not settled by these replies. · General agreement with a suggested revision does not adopt every sanction in the quoted reply. · Predictions of court victories and civil liability remain the author's historical claims, not verified legal conclusions.
Totalmente de acuerdo en lo que propones del punto 12.4
Que se verifican autom?ticamente cada cierto tiempo, con un proceso automatizado desde LACNIC
es mejor que el procedimiento lo defina LACNIC.
Registration and validation of abuse contact
Évaluation: Cohérent · The objection to automated abuse contacts concerns systems that ignore email and force victims into incompatible forms. The author expressly supports automatic initial reports and automatic or semi-automatic processing that responds. Read together, the broad phrase against automation is qualified by this functional distinction, not a ban on all automation.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.
Évaluation: Cohérent · The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.
Réserves: The offered changes are not evidence that a revised text was actually published or approved. · Replacing the word discriminatory with exclusionary softens the description without removing the stated objection. · The illustrative participation percentages and accounts of prior forums are not independently verified measurements.
El objetivo es que el consenso se alcance en la lista, y no en el foro
y entonces mantener el proceso expeditivo
hacer que el consenso sea de lista+foro en lugar de solo lista o solo foro
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP
Évaluation: Cohérent · The 2017 preference for list-based consensus carries into the later PDP redesign and its equal-participation rationale. Details do change: the earlier preference is 30 calendar days, while the later outline gives a four-week last call. The later emphasis on inclusion rather than speed narrows the stated priority without negating the earlier observation that meetings can delay a decision.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.
Clarifications of Sub-Assignments
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.
Réserves: Other regions are contextual references, not evidence that a particular LACNIC alternative was adopted.
La diferencia es limitar esto a un m?ximo de un /64, o dejarlo abierto.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Clarifications of Sub-Assignments
Évaluation: Cohérent · The earlier end-user/LIR distinction concerns assignment to separate institutions in a national network. The later sub-assignment clarification explicitly distinguishes temporary guest or employee connectivity from permanent service. These scopes can coexist; the later temporary-use exception does not establish that permanent distribution to other organizations was reclassified as end-user use.
Réserves: The imprecise university wording in the earlier example remains an uncertainty, not a basis for a categorical identity rule. · The later message leaves the /64 size alternative undecided.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
Évaluation: Cohérent · The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.
Réserves: The quoted participant's uncertainty is not the author's own neutral position. · An ISP proposal's reported consensus does not establish consensus for the end-user proposal.
un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar
un ISP "ceda" con un sistema simplificado de transferencias, el direccionamiento al usuario final que lo usa.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
Évaluation: Cohérent · Both the ISP and end-user discussions pursue retention of existing addressing through an agreed transfer to avoid renumbering. The author separates the recipient classes while using the same operational rationale; support in one discussion is not evidence of consensus in the other.
Réserves: The effect on routing remains a debated claim.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.
Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
Évaluation: Cohérent · The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.
Réserves: His routing-equivalence argument is contested advocacy, not an independently measured network outcome. · The half-joking routing-table remark is not a policy commitment; the rhetorical question about abolishing transfers is not a repeal proposal. · The participating organizations must agree and an authorized representative must approve; no unilateral right is asserted.
tiene que haber acuerdo entre ambas partes.
pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.
poner transferir en lugar de ceder.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
Évaluation: Cohérent · Both the ISP and end-user discussions pursue retention of existing addressing through an agreed transfer to avoid renumbering. The author separates the recipient classes while using the same operational rationale; support in one discussion is not evidence of consensus in the other.
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.
Réserves: A preference for immediate replies is not a position on each election rule. · A shared email subject does not by itself attribute a stance on another proposal.
Mi respuesta no negaba una versi?n 2 o 3 o las que hagan falta
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.
Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.
Réserves: No substantive recovery-rule consistency judgment can be inferred from agreement with the tooling suggestion.
Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web
Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual
Évaluation: Cohérent · Providing a policy diff and later favoring side-by-side comparisons show a compatible preference for making textual changes easier to inspect. That narrow presentation preference supplies no evidence of consistency on the substantive IPv6 or resource-recovery provisions.
Réserves: Only the presentation practice is compared here.
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)
Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · Correcting the region named in a 2006 eligibility clause and arguing for justified organizational eligibility in a distinct 2007 proposal are compatible but not directly comparable acts. The source record does not support either a contradiction claim or a strong longitudinal-consistency claim across the two proposals.
Réserves: The proposals have separate source identities and must not be merged solely because both concern IPv6 PI. · No position is inferred from text quoted from another author.
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).
Réserves: Les propositions soulèvent des questions différentes et chacune n'est représentée que par un message.
It is the only way to determine consensus in a PDP valid way.
the secretariat who should provide some inputs.
Réserves: Les propositions soulèvent des questions différentes et chacune n'est représentée que par un message.
It is the only way to determine consensus in a PDP valid way.
the secretariat who should provide some inputs.
Réserves: The author's account of his original intention cannot erase the earlier organization-longevity wording.
El plan de direccionamiento ha de tener en cuenta la longevidad prevista de la organizaci?n.
nunca fue la intenci?n que la longevidad fuera de la organizaci?n, sino de la distribuci?n inicial
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Évaluation: Mixte · The August university example calls a university with several providers not an end user, yet immediately says each university could obtain its own /32 under the end-user policy. Elsewhere the distinction turns on assigning resources to separate organizations. The example therefore contains an unresolved classification ambiguity; it does not establish that multihoming alone changes an organization into an LIR.
Réserves: This concerns the precision of the example, not a demonstrated reversal of the objective of aggregated national-network addressing. · No supplied follow-up expressly reconciles those two descriptions of the university.
necesita direccionamiento propio y obviamente NO es un usuario final.
Si aplican a la pol?tica de usuario final, podr?an obtener, cada una de ellas su propio /32.
asignar direcciones? a terceros
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Évaluation: Cohérent · The separate-category and common-rule proposals are competing mechanisms for the same planning objective. The author expressly presents them as alternatives, then explains abandoning the more complex category approach after the common rule received community support. The record documents a reasoned change in preferred mechanism rather than simultaneous contradictory commitments.
Réserves: A consistent objective does not mean identical eligibility criteria across the two designs. · The final implementation status is outside what these statements establish.
Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.
esta pol?tica se abandona, porque el objetivo que persegu?a se cumple igualmente con la LAC-2016-7
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Clarifications of Sub-Assignments
Évaluation: Cohérent · The earlier end-user/LIR distinction concerns assignment to separate institutions in a national network. The later sub-assignment clarification explicitly distinguishes temporary guest or employee connectivity from permanent service. These scopes can coexist; the later temporary-use exception does not establish that permanent distribution to other organizations was reclassified as end-user use.
Réserves: The imprecise university wording in the earlier example remains an uncertainty, not a basis for a categorical identity rule. · The later message leaves the /64 size alternative undecided.
El gobierno aplicar?a por end user SI la asignaci?n de direcciones fuera SOLO a entidades de la MISMA entidad
Simplemente se considera que debe ser "temporal" y por tanto no un servicio de "banda ancha".
Réserves: A consistent objective does not mean identical eligibility criteria across the two designs. · The final implementation status is outside what these statements establish.
Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.
esta pol?tica se abandona, porque el objetivo que persegu?a se cumple igualmente con la LAC-2016-7
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6
Évaluation: Cohérent · Support for a common initial-allocation rule is followed by advocacy of matching subsequent-allocation criteria, expressly to avoid disadvantaging earlier recipients. These are complementary positions on the same planning issue.
Réserves: The comparison concerns the author's rationale, not proof of ratification or deployment.
v?lido para ambos casos.
dejar?a en desventaja a quien haya obtenido una distribuci?n inicial *antes* de la reciente aprobaci?n del cambio.
Réserves: The two proposals address different recipient classes. · The emails do not independently establish the frequency of end-user cases.
ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.
Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.
Rectifying the size of initial allocations · Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6
Évaluation: Cohérent · Saying the initial-correction proposal does not change subsequent allocations is a statement about that proposal's scope. Advocating a separate subsequent-allocation revision later does not contradict it or promise that the rules would never change.
Réserves: Distinct proposals and dates must remain separate.
no cambiamos, con esta propuesta, subsiguientes asignaciones
el texto de subsiguientes distribuciones, al probarse este cambio, queda desfasado.
Réserves: Do not describe the two timing specifications as identical. · The asserted benefits and participation problems are the author's reasoning, not measured causal findings.
creo que 30 d?as naturales ser?a suficiente y siempre m?s f?cil de contar.
ello permite participar a quienes no necesariamente viajan
un "last call" de 4 semanas
El objetivo principal es facilitar la participaci?n de *toda la comunidad* en igualdad de condiciones
ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.
Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.
Rectifying the size of initial allocations · Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6
Évaluation: Cohérent · Saying the initial-correction proposal does not change subsequent allocations is a statement about that proposal's scope. Advocating a separate subsequent-allocation revision later does not contradict it or promise that the rules would never change.
Réserves: Distinct proposals and dates must remain separate.
no cambiamos, con esta propuesta, subsiguientes asignaciones
el texto de subsiguientes distribuciones, al probarse este cambio, queda desfasado.
La LAC-2018-11, simplemente elimina el requisito de multihoming para IPv4 para ser usuario final
Réserves: Claims about reporting volume, regional response rates, and negligible validation cost are not measured evidence in this corpus. · The proposal distinguishes common reporting access from the ISP's own contractual treatment of a customer.
eso implica que no sean automatizados
Lo razonable es que el primer contacto de abuso, por parte de la v?ctima, pueda ser procesado de forma autom?tica.
procesar ese email de forma autom?tica o semi-autom?tica y RESPONDEN.
Réserves: Do not describe the two timing specifications as identical. · The asserted benefits and participation problems are the author's reasoning, not measured causal findings.
creo que 30 d?as naturales ser?a suficiente y siempre m?s f?cil de contar.
ello permite participar a quienes no necesariamente viajan
un "last call" de 4 semanas
El objetivo principal es facilitar la participaci?n de *toda la comunidad* en igualdad de condiciones
Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option) · Simplification of the PDP
Évaluation: Cohérent · The later explanation that consensus is not a count of votes matches the earlier PDP reform argument for evaluating substantive objections and including list participants. No reversal of that conception of consensus is shown.
Réserves: Endorsement of this principle does not establish agreement with every procedural provision.
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra"
definir "consenso" (que no es un cuenteo de votos).
El gobierno aplicar?a por end user SI la asignaci?n de direcciones fuera SOLO a entidades de la MISMA entidad
Simplemente se considera que debe ser "temporal" y por tanto no un servicio de "banda ancha".
un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar
pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.
Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users · Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
Évaluation: Cohérent · The author explains dividing the combined end-user proposal into transfer and multihoming components after community feedback. Supporting both as separate proposals is coherent; it does not imply either had been adopted.
Réserves: This is an explicitly described change in proposal structure, not an inferred change from a shared subject line.
afrontara cada problema con una propuesta especifica y as? lo hice ese mismo d?a.
La LAC-2018-11, simplemente elimina el requisito de multihoming para IPv4 para ser usuario final
Réserves: The effect on routing remains a debated claim.
un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar
pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.