[address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02

> Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and 
> it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc.
> now - we've heard all arguments.  What we need to decide now is whether
> the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the 
> proposal, or not.

I'd like to have it back to discussion.

My position is only formal:

The proposal argues that a requirement (multihoming) is not longer needed,
because there might be an other (assumed to be weaker) condition (own AS)
for PIv6.

I do accept the reasoning itself, but not the formal consequence drawn by
the proposal. If somebody likes to have "A or B" instead of "A", it's
not sufficent to remove "A".