Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...

Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
> Yes and a not so good policy.
>   
An excellent policy, actually. Most "excellent" policies are formulates 
before greed and commercial interests get a hold; See US Declaration of 
Independence, early RIPE policies and most RFCs before the IETF happened.

>
>   Peters discription is however not complete, as we now know, and
> as many have contended sence day 1, was never intended as he
> discribes it.
>
>   
Er, actually in this context it is and was and hopefully will be. I 
think I was hanging around in the background when many of these were 
formulated; not contributing, but drinking the coffee at least. As 
Michael says the "public" Internet is not completely what the original 
RFC authors had in mind.
>
>   Exactly right and therefore presupposes that private PI or PA space
> wheather public or not are in any routing scheme may or may not reflect
> the public internet routing policy which is just a fact of the real world.
>   
Not that simple and probably not true. You are conflating routing 
between networks (internetworking) and this supposed public 
infrastructure where a large proportion of the address space is visible 
in some form. They are not the same and how will you decide who's policy 
viewpoint is the right one ? Let me guess, a network with a routing 
policy and a viewpoint you agree with ?

Peter