[address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period until 9 July on revised RIPE Policy document for IPv6 database objects

Dear Andrea Cima, address-policy-wg,

Since it is not included as an option, is there any reason why simply
reassigning the AS numbers after a period of time, but notifying object
maintainers which reference the AS number that this has occurred (or is about to
occur) would not be the best solution?

Keeping limited resources out of the recycling pool because of laziness or lack
of situational awareness of some operators seems like a poor approach.

Butchering object and outdated RPSL policies of operators and replacing them
with selectively less outdated versions automatically seems undesirable as well
since it may break any further operator automation which (wrongfully or not) may
rely on those objects.

--
Respectfully yours,

David Monosov

On 06/25/2013 03:29 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward
> with a review of the policy document ripe-513, "Value of the "status:"
> and "assignment-size:" attributes in INET6NUM objects for sub-assigned
> PA space".
> 
> A draft of the policy document is online and ready for community
> review at:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-documents
> 
> The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review
> period until 9 July 2013 to allow the community more time to give their
> feedback.
> 
> Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy
> Working Group at <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Emilio Madaio
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC		
>