[lir-wg] Draft: IPv4 Sub-allocations - revisited

Hay,

even though i hope that everyone already noticed it, i didn't see
any comments about it on any list yet:

in "3.0 Database registration" the draft states:

[...]
3.1 Status attribute for inetnums representing sub-allocations

Registration of a sub-allocation in the RIPE Database requires the creation of an inetnum object with an appropriate status value.
3.2 Restriction on creation of inetnums with an .ASSIGNED. status

The creation of an inetnum object with a status of .ASSIGNED PA. or .ASSIGNED PI. will not be allowed if there is either a less specific or more specific inetnum object with an .ASSIGNED. status. The assigned status inetnum is the most specific registration allowed.
[...]

...just that it seems to lack the information _what_ status value is 
appropriate for a sub-allocation then.

One might guess that "LIR-PARTITIONED [PA|PI]" could be meant, but it
also might be something completely different or even some new value since
the current ripe-239 doesn't really cover the usage the sub-allocation draft
suggest (5.0 in ripe-239 "IP Address Policy Implications").

...just my 0.02EUR

-- 
==========================================================================
= Sascha 'master' Lenz          SLZ-RIPE           slz at baycix.de         =
= NOC BayCIX GmbH                                                        =
= http://www.noc.baycix.de/                * PGP public Key on demand *  =
==========================================================================