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

Hi Alex,

* Alex Le Heux

> 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:

As I understand it, if something is not explicitly mentioned in the
policy, it is by default not permitted. With that in mind, I'll try to
answer your points below:

> - Is a PI assignment valid as long as the original criteria remain valid?

Yes, my proposal does not change or remove the relevant text that states
this. See section 6.3.

> - What about transfers of PI? Not allowed? Allowed?

Not allowed, because no explicit policy that allows it exists. Note that
this is also the case in current policy, so my proposal upholds the
status quo.

> - Are sub-assignments now allowed?

Not allowed, because no explicit policy that allows it exists. Note that
this is also the case in current policy, so my proposal upholds the
status quo.

> - Is there a requirement to keep the registration data in the RIPE DB up
>   to date?

Yes, my proposal does not change or remove the relevant text that states
this. See sections 3.0 (point 3), 4.0, and 6.3.

> 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.

The way I see it, ASSIGNED PI is now simply a historic status, in the
exact same way that, e.g., ALLOCATED PI and ASSIGNED ANYCAST is. And it
remains documented as such in section 7.0 of the proposed policy. I do
not quite see why ASSIGNED PI specifically needs more documentation than
those other historic types of delegations.

That said, if you can suggest some text to add that would resolve your
concerns, I would be very happy to incorporate it into the proposal.

Tore