[address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv6 Transfers)

On 20/01/2015 07:08, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt at ripe.net>
> 
>> The proposal described in 2014-12, "Allow IPv6 Transfers", is now in
>> its Review Phase.
> 
> The need for IPv6 tranfers are probably going to be miniscule as IPv6
> numbers are readily available from the NCC, but nevertheless I think it
> makes sense to harmonise the transfer policies for all the different
> resource types we have.

Can I suggest that this text be clarified slightly:

> The block that is to be re-assigned must not be smaller than the minimum
> assignment block size at the time of re-assignment.

e.g.

> The block that is to be re-assigned must not be smaller than the minimum
> RIPE NCC IPv6 Provider Independent assignment block size at the time of
> re-assignment.

Otherwise the intent is ambiguous.

Is there a reason that the 24-month cooling down period was removed for
this proposal?

Nick