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

At 02:11 AM 29/12/2005, João Damas wrote:

>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?

no particular reason - I'm sure in any room half would prefer "bits" and 
half  "octets"

I'm personally inclined to use "bits" in preference to "octets"




>>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)


However it does make the policy proposal clearer to read!


>>- 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?

the latter - the ARIN discussion has appeared to head towards a conclusion 
that the dates are the critical part of the proposal, and to remove them 
from the proposal would make the entire exercise somewhat meaningless. I 
concur with that view.

>>- 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?

No I do not think so. Nothing else changes in the policy proposal.

regards,

     Geoff