Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocat
- To: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
- From: Jonny Martin <jonny at jonnynet dot net>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:40:33 +1300
- Cc: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>, sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <47A952E3.1020204 at cisco dot com>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <F1AD33BD-561B-4F75-A17F-9A9CAAF0C481@apnic.net> <47A14EC8.firstname.lastname@example.org> <47A19214.email@example.com> <47A24F1B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <47A2E097.email@example.com> <47A6543D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <47A66E87.email@example.com> <47A7C288.firstname.lastname@example.org> <544A687C-AFEF-4800-9967-5E94899FDD2E@jonnynet.net> <47A92CBF.email@example.com> <47A952E3.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 6/02/2008, at 7:25 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Izumi, Izumi Okutani said the following on 6/2/08 13:42:I see what you mean and tried to play with some words, but I felt putting a word that makes it sound like a requirement gives quite a strong impression."plan" doesn't make any requirement at all, as I pointed out before. Apart from in Japan, it seems. ;-)
Yes, I was hoping "plan" could be avoided in the updated text also.
In retrospect, I think your new words of: The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a singleaggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years.should be replaced with: The LIR must also announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within two years. Just delete the word "plan", as a plan is nothing more than a vague statement of some future intention which may or may not come to pass. Also change "should" to "must" - that's a commitment now!
I like that. I'd fully support the proposal if it is amended as you've presented.