[address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)

* Gert Doering

> (but indeed, accepting 2012-06 and stalling 2012-03 would make 2012-03 somewhat superfluous).

Well, 2012-03 seeks to increase the need period for transfers of
allocations to two years, while 2012-06 would only increase that period
to one year. Therefore, if the WG wants the need period for transfers to
increase to two years, 2012-03 is not superfluous at all (irrespective
of the status of 2012-06).

You could argue that by passing 2012-06 first, 2012-03 would be easier
to pass, as it would then be a smaller change policy (+12 months rather
than +21 months). On the other hand, you could also argue that 2012-06
undermines the rationale for 2012-03 - if the WG's opinion is that 12
months (but not 3 months) is a sufficiently long need period for transfers.

It is my understanding that if both 2012-03 and 2012-06 passes (in that
order), the change made by 2012-06 to section 5.0 would not actually
change any actively used policy. There is still a small benefit to doing
so anyway, in my opinion, as it would remove four paragraphs of defunct
policy text.

-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com