[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Sat Mar 30 13:28:00 CET 2013
* Richard Hartmann > I support this proposal. Thank you! > Three cosmetic comments; it would be nice if they could be > incorporated. If not, they should _not_ hold up this process in any > way. > > * "In the event that this /16 remains unused at the time the remaining > addresses covered by this policy has been distributed, it returns to > the pool to be distributed as per section 5.1, and this section is to > be automatically deleted from the policy document." should read "have > been distributed", instead. No-brainer. Will incorporate, thanks. > * "IXPs holding other PI IPv4 space for their peering LAN (i.e. they > are seeking a larger assignment), must return their old peering LAN > resources back to this pool within 180 days of assignment." uses IXP > once and Internet Exchange [Pp]oint otherwise. Might clean that up > just as well. Similarly, "Internet Exchange point" should be replaced > with "Internet Exchange Point" I suggest abbreviating all references except for the first one (where the abbreviation is defined in the first place). Sounds good? > * "Clear contractual arrangements are recommended and are mandatory > for PA space." This could be worded more clearly. Are they recommended > generally, but mandatory for PA? If yes, PI have contractual > requirements as well so this could be mentioned here as well. An > alternative interpretation would be that contracts are both mandatory > and recommended for PA space which would be somewhat nonsensical. The original statement read: «LIRs must make it clear to End Users which type of address space [PI vs PA] is assigned. Clear contractual arrangements are recommended and are mandatory for PA space.» I removed the first sentence as part of "cleanup", since PI is a thing of the past. Agreed that the remaining statement looks awkward on its own. Suggested new replacement: «Clear contractual arrangements are mandatory for PA space.» In any case, contractual arrangements have been mandatory for both PI and PA space since 2007-01 was implemented, so the suggestion that it was "only" recommended for PI was in any case obsolete and incorrect policy. Good catch, thanks! Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]