Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-12 New Policy Proposal (4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal)

[Joćo Damas <]

On 26 Dec, 2005, at 21:28, Geoff Huston wrote:

> b) that the proposal replace the term "2 byte" with "16 bit" and "4  
> byte" with "32 bit" due to the somewhat imprecise nature of the  
> definition of a "byte"
why not use octet, which is the language used in the i-d?

> Other topics of discussion on the ARIN list have been
> - whether the terminology and nomenclature sessions should be  
> included in the policy proposal
If policy is what decides if a requester gets the resource or not,  
then no, as this sounds more like local implementation (procedure),  
like most of the text (except for the dates, perhaps, which set what  
gets assigned and when)

> - whether the specification of dates are reasonable in this context
is this a question of whether the suggested dates are appropriate or  
whether any dates are appropriate?

> - whether the policy alters the current sequential number  
> allocation registry practice
> - the criteria (if any) that should be applied to a request for an  
> AS number of the "other" type
> - the desireable size of the private use AS number pool
Would the policy need a reference to the IANA as the ultimate  
caretaker of the registry?

Joao