[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

On Sunday, August 4, 2013, David Farmer wrote:

> On 8/4/13 09:48 , Tore Anderson wrote:
>
>> * David Farmer
>>
>>  I believe the primary definition of fairness the RIR communities have
>>> been using is, "only those that have *verified operational need* get
>>> Internet number resources".
>>>
>>
>> Do you have a link or reference? (Tried Google, no hits.)
>>
>
> Try goal #1 in section #1 of RFC 2050.
> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/**rfc2050#section-1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2050#section-1>


since this is going to be replaced we should probably make sure we are in
line with:

>
> And in slightly different words, try goal #1 in section #2 of RFC 2050-bis.
> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-housley-rfc2050bis-02#**section-2<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-02#section-2>


another question is if rfc2050 is "binding" and "limiting" for the RIRs
and
if draft-housley is going to be it may have go go trough some RIR processes
too?

-hph


-- 
Hans Petter Holen
Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130806/0df5ccd0/attachment.html>