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

* Hans Petter Holen

> since this is going to be replaced we should probably make sure we are
> in line with [goal #1 in section #2 of RFC 2050-bis].

As I explained in my reply to David Conrad, I believe the amendment I'll
be proposing in version 3.0 of the proposal will ensure that we are. (In
a nutshell: Keep "Need" around in its current form for the final /22
allocations issued by the NCC to its members.)

> 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?

I think David Conrad answered this already by clearly stating that
draft-housley is not intended to be "the New Testament".

Tore