[address-policy-wg] 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 address policy

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, at 15:28, Erik Bais wrote:

> Could you provide insight in what you want to review ? 
> 
> That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and
> not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers. 

My point relates to section 7.1 of the current IPv6 address policy. It
lets people understand that if someone got an IPv6 PI some time ago
(before becoming LIR), they will have issues getting anything else
IPv6-related (and possibly IPv4-related) unless they renumber (or play
administrative games with the NCC or have really unique requirements -
which is always subject to debate). Just as a reminder, re-numbering
live networks may be much more complicated than it seems on paper (like
in "try to get the address of a business-critical system changed when
more than 50% of higher management doesn't know much about IT").

Paragraph 2 should be re-worded : from "must do this IF that" to "IF
that THEN must do this". Makes things more readable.
Paragraph 3 should be probably relaxed (?? removed entirely ??).
Probably re-ordering paragraphs (1, 3, 2) would also make things easier
to read and understand.

Relation to 2014-12 : Not much. It updates concerned text (without much
relation to proposal's subject either). May probably clarify some cases
of LIR consolidation.
Relation to 2014-04 : Half redundant with 2014-04 (which will probably
go live before we sort out this issue).

> No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case
> in order to keep this discussion clean.  

Done :)

--
Radu