[address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review period on the new draft document for IPv6 Address Policy

Hi.

In RIPE-512 section 5.5 "Registration" is says:
"When more than a /48 is assigned to an organisation, it must be 
registered in the database as a separate object with status 'ASSIGNED'."

I believe the correct wording here should be "End Site" instead of 
organisation.

If you read the wording stictly, we cannot use the AGGREGATED-BY-LIR for 
"organisations" with more than one /48 End Site, and I dont think this was 
the intention.


--
Thor-Henrik Kvandahl
Network Architect
Telenor Norway, Snaroyvn. 30, 1331 Fornebu, Norway.

On Mon, 30 May 2011, Emilio Madaio wrote:

>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> At RIPE 59 in Lisbon in October 2009, the RIPE NCC announced that it would 
> undertake a project to make various RIPE policy documents easier to 
> understand without changing the meaning of the text.
>
> As already announced, the latest draft document produced according to the 
> project is available at:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/
>
> This is the merger of the three policy documents:
>
> -ripe-512 "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy"
> -ripe-451 "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points"
> -ripe-233 "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers in the RIPE Region"
>
> The announcement of the publication of this new draft is available at:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00243.html
>
> The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs decided to extend the review 
> period until 13 June 2011 to allow the community more time to give their 
> feedback.
>
> We encourage you to read this merged version and send any comments to 
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 13 June 2011.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Emilio Madaio
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>
>