[ppml] New Alternative Text... was: version thought

[Glenn Wiltse]

  Your right... my mistake. My original intent was to use
the 50% of /22, which is indeed 512. While I do feel 512 is
a bit low I'd be willing to accept what ever number might have
consensus.

   I'm not really very good at public speaking... so I'd rather not have to 
present...  Perhaps someone could do it on my behalf. I could take a bit 
more time and write up some of my Rationale for my wording, which could 
help anyone who might be willing to volenteer to present my text and/or 
rationale for it.. I too just want what is good for the group, although 
getting up in front of the PP meeting is a bit out of my comfort range.

Glenn Wiltse

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:

>
>
> --On February 16, 2006 10:24:46 AM -0500 Glenn Wiltse <iggy at merit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>    Current IPv4 plolicy says 25% imediate use, 50% within a year. I used
>> the number needed within a year...  I'm certianly willing to accept just
>> about any number that would allow for consenus, what ever that would
>> be... I just wanted to avoid the use of a pointer to IPv4 policy, so
>> needed a number.
>>
> OK... My point was that 50% of a /22 (current IPv4 policy) is a 510 hosts.
> I can accept any number <=1024 as well, so, I think we're making good
> progress here.  Perhaps we can do shows of hands to gauge consensus on
> this at the various levels.
>
>> That would be great if you could present both, perticularly
>> of AC, BOT, and Kevin would all agree that was OK.
>>
> Well... What I was really suggesting was splitting our time and Kevin
> and/or I would present the current 2005-1 and you could present yours
> for side-by-side comparison and consensus.  I'm willing to do whatever
> works for the group in general.
>
> Owen
>
>
> -- 
> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
>