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

* Richard Hartmann

> I support this proposal.

Thank you!

> Three cosmetic comments; it would be nice if they could be
> incorporated. If not, they should _not_ hold up this process in any
> way.
> 
> * "In the event that this /16 remains unused at the time the remaining
> addresses covered by this policy has been distributed, it returns to
> the pool to be distributed as per section 5.1, and this section is to
> be automatically deleted from the policy document." should read "have
> been distributed", instead.

No-brainer. Will incorporate, thanks.

> * "IXPs holding other PI IPv4 space for their peering LAN (i.e. they
> are seeking a larger assignment), must return their old peering LAN
> resources back to this pool within 180 days of assignment." uses IXP
> once and Internet Exchange [Pp]oint otherwise. Might clean that up
> just as well. Similarly, "Internet Exchange point" should be replaced
> with "Internet Exchange Point"

I suggest abbreviating all references except for the first one (where
the abbreviation is defined in the first place). Sounds good?

> * "Clear contractual arrangements are recommended and are mandatory
> for PA space." This could be worded more clearly. Are they recommended
> generally, but mandatory for PA? If yes, PI have contractual
> requirements as well so this could be mentioned here as well. An
> alternative interpretation would be that contracts are both mandatory
> and recommended for PA space which would be somewhat nonsensical.

The original statement read:

«LIRs must make it clear to End Users which type of address space [PI vs
PA] is assigned. Clear contractual arrangements are recommended and are
mandatory for PA space.»

I removed the first sentence as part of "cleanup", since PI is a thing
of the past. Agreed that the remaining statement looks awkward on its
own. Suggested new replacement:

«Clear contractual arrangements are mandatory for PA space.»

In any case, contractual arrangements have been mandatory for both PI
and PA space since 2007-01 was implemented, so the suggestion that it
was "only" recommended for PI was in any case obsolete and incorrect policy.

Good catch, thanks!

Tore