[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)

On 8 sep 2010, at 15:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote:

> Thus wrote Denis Walker (denis at ripe.net):
> 
>> Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>>> On Sep 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, <kpn-ip-office at kpn.com> <kpn-ip-office at kpn.com> wrote:
>>>> I have some questions about the proposal
>>>> Question 1:
>>>> Why was chosen for "SUB-ASSIGNED PA" and not for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or even "LIR-PARTITIONED PA", [...]
> 
> [...]
> 
>> One is to
>> aggregate many individual customers into an assignment block.
> 
> It's a rather bikeshedding issue, but maybe pick AGGREGATED PA?
> LIR-PARTITIONED PA would also be easily understandable, but is a mouthful. :)


I was about to come with the same suggestion. As said, the current one basically is just a placeholder as we needed something in the revision 1 document.

'AGGREGATED XX' is pretty much unique and clearly describes the whole purpose.

MarcoH