[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-06-19, at 13.31, Pekka Savola wrote:

> Are an ISP's own PoPs or other parts of infrastructure "other
> organisations"?
>
> Nope. Never.  Not by any English dictionary :).

I haven't claimed it to be.

> The purpose at this point is to clarify the policy, not to change it.

Is it?

> You're confusing the issue by saying what you believe an optimal
> policy *SHOULD* be.

Yes, and?

>   I have an opinion about that as well, but that's
> out of scope of this debate, i.e., what the policy is and what it was
> intended to be (and 'other organisations' makes it crystal clear IMHO
> that you were not intended to count the internal assignments).

Well, it would be good if we understood the current policy, or at least 
that all had the same view of it. But if it is that unclear, we should 
perhaps revisit it. Which is what I am arguing for. And when we do - I 
think this is something that we need to get in there.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQNaDWKarNKXTPFCVEQLpMACfUW9B709p3aVgYNGHMCT2CwHN0J8An07k
++ZM5s4v1fUYDn0jzbwZagWR
=gF4H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----