[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

Hi Tore,


On 2013-03-21 08:40 , "Tore Anderson" <tore at fud.no> wrote:

>>This proposal is a gigantic leap in the right direction.
>
>Thank you. I hope that the WG chairs and I can interpret this as a voice
>of support, despite what you write about PI below?

Not so fastŠ :)

>> Any future IPv4 policy should describe what to do with PI assignments
>> [...]
>> Leaving them in limbo is not a good idea.
>
>I want to avoid having my policy proposal fix "everything" at the same
>time. While it may be tempting to have it fix issues A, B, C, D, E, F,
>and G in one go, the risk with that is that the community doesn't agree
>with, say, F - and on that basis alone killing the entire proposal.
>
>Therefore I want to limit the scope of changes as much as reasonably
>possible, so that we can discuss the actual issues only without getting
>side-tracked over another "nice to have" change that might prove
>controversial.

[Š]

I understand that. This is going to be tricky enough to shepherd through
the PDP as it is.

But, by ignoring PI and cutting it out completely, I do feel that your
proposal creates a limbo  where there was none before.

Questions that will remain unanswered under the proposed policy include,
but are probably not limited to:

- Is a PI assignment valid as long as the original criteria remain valid?
  Or is it now valid no matter what happens?
- What about transfers of PI? Not allowed? Allowed?
  If allowed, under which circumstances?
- Are sub-assignments now allowed?
- Is there a requirement to keep the registration data in the RIPE DB up
  to date?

Even though the RIPE NCC will most likely not assign new PI in the future,
these are still issues that its staff will have to deal with, and by
extension, we as a community as well.

Cheers,

Alex Le Heux
Kobo Inc