[ppml] ppml itself
Paul Vixie
paul at vix.com
Thu Feb 2 19:26:51 EST 2006
here's the output of "pick -subject '2001-status' +arin/ppml" here. those of
us whose names appear here most often probably ought to take a step backward,
let other folks talk, realize that even if we said something we hadn't said
before nobody would know or notice, and consider some kind of omnibus-reply
mechanism like sending one message per topic per week encompassing all of the
issues raised upon which we would like to comment. progress doesn't look like
what's below, and what's below definitely does not look (to me) like progress.
616 01/23 Marshall Eubanks [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Hello; When last I saw it,
617 01/23 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Marshall Eubanks wrote
620 01/23 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Kevin, Why don't you,
621 01/23 Daniel Golding Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<This seems the only re
622 01/23 Lea Roberts Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<well, seems like maybe
623 01/23 Lea Roberts Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<because, as I'm sure y
624 01/23 Steve Feldman Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Jan 23, 2006, at 1:
625 01/23 Daniel Golding Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Well, the last PP 2005
626 01/23 Daniel Golding Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<That is proof by asser
627 01/23 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<OK, I'll start.... Why
628 01/23 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<OK Lea, > > because, a
629 01/23 "william(at)elan. Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, B
630 01/23 "william(at)elan. Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, w
631 01/23 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<One possible argument
635 01/23 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Scott Leibrand wrote:
638 01/24 Geoff Huston Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<At 08:18 AM 24/01/2006
639 01/23 Tom Vest Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Jan 23, 2006, at 6:
640 01/24 Geoff Huston Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<At 10:38 AM 24/01/2006
641 01/23 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<From: Scott Leibrand O
643 01/23 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 01/23/06 at 6:00pm
644 01/23 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 01/23/06 at 4:25pm
647 01/23 Tom Vest Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Jan 23, 2006, at 7:
648 01/23 Marshall Eubanks Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<I cannot predict what
650 01/23 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Geoff, I'm interested
651 01/23 Bill Woodcock Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> I see no reason why
652 01/23 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<I would agree. However
653 01/23 Marshall Eubanks Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<I do not agree with th
657 01/23 Marshall Eubanks Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Easy The experiment ha
658 01/23 Daniel Golding Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 1/23/06 6:20 PM, "G
663 01/24 Geoff Huston Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<There is pressure for
667 01/24 Christopher Morro Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 1/24/06, Bill Darte
668 01/24 Christopher Morro Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 1/24/06, Bill Woodc
670 01/23 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<We should at least lea
671 01/24 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<There is a collection
672 01/24 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> Why should the crite
673 01/24 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> I like what Kevin ha
674 01/24 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> so we have > to plan
676 01/24 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> There is pressure fo
677 01/24 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> > > Why should the c
679 01/24 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> > Why should the met
682 01/24 "Howard, W. Lee" Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Bill Darte said: > Ima
683 01/24 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Michael.Dillon at btradia
684 01/24 "cja at daydream.com Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============05125
685 01/24 David Williamson Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 a
686 01/24 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<cja at daydream.com wrote
687 01/24 David Williamson Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 a
690 01/24 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 01/24/06 at 6:49am
691 01/24 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<I would agree that IPv
692 01/24 Marshall Eubanks Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Hello; On Jan 24, 2006
693 01/24 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Ok. Could you perhaps
694 01/24 Marshall Eubanks Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Sure : http://www.arin
695 01/24 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 01/24/06 at 11:09am
696 01/24 Daniel Golding Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 1/24/06 3:29 PM, "S
697 01/24 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<IMO, 2005_1_orig does
701 01/24 Marshall Eubanks Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<GBP ? A typo for BGP ?
702 01/24 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Bill, I think we do ne
703 01/24 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Owen, I speculated tha
704 01/24 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<We should at least lea
705 01/24 Marshall Eubanks Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<To translate this, it
706 01/24 Marshall Eubanks Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<I do not agree. I do n
708 01/24 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 01/24/06 at 6:57pm
709 01/24 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Jan 24, 2006, at 3:
710 01/25 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> Another reason to ma
711 01/25 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> > We should be disti
713 01/25 "william(at)elan. Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, B
714 01/25 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Nice post.... focuses
717 01/25 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> Human factor. If ren
718 01/25 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> > > Bill, > > I thin
720 01/25 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> > > Human factor. If
722 01/25 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 01/25/06 at 7:40am
725 01/25 Tony Li Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> What I ask is...is i
726 01/25 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> What I ask is...is i
727 01/25 Tony Li Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> OK, Tony...it's an a
728 01/25 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Jan 25, 2006, at 7:
736 01/27 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Tony, So what do you t
737 -01/27 Tony Li Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> So what do you think
740 01/27 To:ppml at arin.net Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<tony wrote: # It is my
742 -01/27 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 01/27/06 at 11:05am
743 01/27 Bill Darte RE: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> > tony wrote: > > #
744 01/27 To:ppml at arin.net Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<# > ... Serious early
745 01/27 To:ppml at arin.net Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<# > ... Serious early
752 01/29 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<This is the latest dra
753 01/30 Marshall Eubanks Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<So, just to be clear,
754 01/30 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Randy Bush wrote: >> S
755 01/30 "Howard, W. Lee" Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> -----Original Messag
756 01/30 "Stephen Sprunk" Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Thus spake "Randy Bush
757 01/30 Marshall Eubanks Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<I would support the pr
758 01/30 "cja at daydream.com Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============13582
759 01/30 Steve Feldman Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> > 6.5.8.2. Direct as
760 01/30 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Stephen Sprunk wrote:
761 01/30 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Steve Feldman wrote: >
762 01/30 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<cja at daydream.com wrote
763 01/30 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Jan 30, 2006, at 12
764 01/30 Steve Feldman Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> It is conceivable >
765 01/30 Steve Feldman Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Jan 30, 2006, at 12
766 01/30 "william(at)elan. Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, O
767 01/30 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Owen DeLong wrote: >>
768 01/30 Daniel Golding Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 1/30/06 4:49 PM, "S
769 01/30 "Stephen Sprunk" Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Thus spake "Kevin Loch
771 01/30 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Stephen Sprunk wrote:
772 01/31 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> Think about it: McDo
774 01/31 "cja at daydream.com Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============17346
775 01/31 "Stephen Sprunk" Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Thus spake "Kevin Loch
776 01/31 "Stephen Sprunk" Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Thus spake <Michael.Di
777 01/31 "George Kuzmowycz Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<>>> Kevin Loch <kloch@
778 01/31 Doug Montgomery Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> Message: 3 > > Date:
780 01/31 Glenn Wiltse Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<If I'm not mistaken th
781 01/31 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============10000
782 01/31 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============15297
785 01/31 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Stephen Sprunk wrote:
786 02/01 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> Here is an alternati
788 -02/01 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> On one side, if we d
789 02/01 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============02705
790 02/01 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> Frankly, if the IETF
791 02/01 To:ppml at arin.net Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<# If ARIN were to furt
793 02/01 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> and yet i don't see
795 02/01 Tony Li Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<>> Frankly, if the IET
798 02/01 Tony Li Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Randy, >> Actually, I
800 02/01 "George Kuzmowycz Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<>>> <Michael.Dillon at bt
801 02/01 "Howard, W. Lee" Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> aren't going to go b
802 02/01 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============15658
803 02/01 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============03983
804 02/01 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Michael, Say ARIN defi
805 02/01 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<George, I think we all
806 02/01 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Scott Leibrand wrote:
807 02/01 Robert Bonomi Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> From ppml-bounces at ar
808 02/01 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============18833
809 02/02 Martin Hannigan Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> > >I know a home use
810 02/02 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> I freely admit I'm n
811 02/02 Michael.Dillon at bt Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> That seems to me the
812 02/02 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 02/01/06 at 11:14pm
813 02/02 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Owen, Do you attend IE
814 02/02 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Bill and Owen, What if
815 02/02 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Owen, My personal beli
817 02/02 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 02/02/06 at 8:31am
818 02/02 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> Bill and Owen, > > W
819 02/02 Kevin Loch Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Scott Leibrand wrote:
820 02/02 Scott Leibrand Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<On 02/02/06 at 10:50am
821 02/02 Bill Darte Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> > > 2005-1 expressed
822 02/02 "Howard, W. Lee" Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<> In any case I expect
823 02/02 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============04970
824 02/02 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============17321
825 02/02 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============20028
826 02/02 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============02331
827 02/02 "Stephen Sprunk" Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<[ This is bordering on
828 02/02 Owen DeLong Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<--===============06500
829 02/02 "Stephen Sprunk" Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status<<Thus spake "George Kuz
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list