[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)

Dear address-policy-wg, Nigel,

On 07/08/2011 03:11 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:

> That is what you are seeing here, no more and no less. It is precisely because
> of this light touch that we have limited our comments to the fact that we feel
> some unease about the policy but feel that it is not our place to comment
> further but that we have confidence that the community will do the right thing.
> Further comments would be done as individuals, as usual.
> 

This is also precisely why I find this particular comment unnecessary and
confusing, especially to members of the community which are not involved in the
entire scope of discussion on the mailing lists, and instead evaluate policy
proposals and their impact on their networks at 'face value' based on the
content of the proposals themselves.

If the board has specific operational or fiscal concerns, or even a formal board
opinion, it would be a disservice to the policy process *not* to include them
for consideration by the community.

However, the board is highly regarded and respected by the community, which is
exactly why I find a generic "we are not feeling it" remark to be inappropriate,
and feel it should have instead been omitted completely in favor of individual
comments on the mailing list, or included as a more specific and concrete set of
concerns providing a constructive contribution to the community's ability to
evaluate the impact of the proposal.

--
Respectfully yours,

David Monosov