[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call

Hello Nick,

>> Someone suggested to include such documentation in IPv6 PI requests.
>> Because this is not actually a policy change (it doesn't change if
>> someone gets the address space or not) but an implementation issue we
>> decided to add it as a note to the RIPE NCC.
> 
> I certainly suggested it as a policy possibility:
> 
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00820.html
> 
> Not sure if others talked about it too.
> 
> However, there is a substantial difference between "explicitly required to
> provide evidence" and "to ask for extensive documentation" - the former was
> suggested because it does materially change the policy.


I know, but that would change the IPv6 PI policy into a judgement call by an IPRA. That would make the policy unimplementable. The information would still be interesting though, which is why I suggest to the RIPE NCC that they ask for it anyway. It's just a suggestion. We don't tell the NCC how to implement policy, but we can suggest :-)

Thanks,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2084 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110923/907d1052/attachment.p7s>