[address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)

Hi!

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote:
>    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03/

I support this proposal, provided I see satisfactory clarifications
according to the below. :)

1)  I note that the proposal specifically does not address transfers
between entities under contract with the RIPE NCC.
Am I correct in concluding the above and following?  That this
proposal does not affect or impede the transfer of an IPv4 resource
from entity X to Y, while keeping the RIPE registry accurate, in any
way? This is a strong and vital function of RIPE NCC's registry
function as we go into the darkness IMO. I.e.., that this only
addresses resource holders who specifically chooses to return
resources to the RIPE NCC without any other party involved?  While I
cannot support a policy proposal which would damage the RIPE NCC
registry in such a way, I don't think this is the intention, but I'd
like to make it dead certain!

2) I'd also like a clarification regarding clause 3b:
"b. Minimum allocation sizes for the relevant /8 blocks will be
updated if necessary."

Updated to what?  It is not explicitly defined.  Is this intentional or not?

I see two ways to read this:
a) The policy proposal intends to declare that address blocks returned
to RIPE that are to be handed out according to LIR's without such an
assignment according to clause 1 (in other words, assignments by way
of clause 3a), shall have the same fixed assignment size as those in
clause 1, i.e. that of a /22.
b) The policy proposal intends to declare that the fixed assignment
size, /22, in clause 1 can "be updated if necessary", i.e be changed
to something else, likely/presumably longer?

Either is fine with me, but I think it's a bit too ambiguous right now.

Thank you,
Regards,
Martin