Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

[David Conrad <david.conrad@localhost]

Carlos,

On Jun 8, 2006, at 3:25 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
> > More seriously, impositions of subjective evaluations like  
> > figuring out what is "reasonable" are generally things to be  
> > avoided.  Also, vagueness of terms such as "own/related  
> > departments/entities/sites" are just begging for abuse. A person  
> > is an entity.  Should an organization with a "reasonable" number  
> > of people justify a /32?
> That's going again on the subjective side... :-(
Right.

> We had enough with the 200-hurdle already, right?
There is a difference between subjective and arbitrary.  200 is  
arbitrary.  It was a number picked out of thin air that was felt to  
be a reasonable compromise.  However, once that number has been  
chosen, it can be objectively verified.  The problem with subjective  
values like "reasonable" is that it leaves it to the registry staff  
to figure out what the right value is.  This is an icky place to be  
as it can change depending on day, mood of the registry person, phase  
of moon, etc.
In my opinion, arbitrary is OK (not perfect, but workable as long as  
the arbitrary number is reached by consensus).  Subjective is just  
asking for trouble.
Rgds,
-drc