[address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)

Hi John,

I think you’re right.

When we drafted this text, in our mind was that “any” subsequent request is re-evaluated adding together, the existing allocation(s), with the new request vs actual/new needs.

I feel that our understanding is that NCC will actually use the “actual” initial allocation criteria (not the old policy text) for this “total” evaluation. But certainly, it will be very helpful if we could clarify this point with their perspective.

Otherwise, probably something such as the following text may work:

5.2.1. b. Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocationS), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. THE CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN 5.1.2. WILL BE APPLIED TO THE COMBINED TOTAL EXPECTED ADDRESSING SPACE.

(used uppercase for changed text)

Probably needs some english tidyup … but I think the idea is clearer now?

Saludos,
Jordi


-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de <John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch>
Responder a: <John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch>
Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 3:41
Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)

    Dear colleagues,
    
    I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal.
    
    However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear.   Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate?  At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me.   
    
    It could mean:
    
    i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space
    or
    ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together
    
    To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant.
    
    My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended.  But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage.
    
    Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work.
    
    John Collins
    swissgov.ch
    
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt
    Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20
    To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
    Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
    
    Dear colleagues,
    
    A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies"
    is now available for discussion.
    
    The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements.
    
    You can find the full proposal at:
    
        https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05
    
    We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 23 December 2016.
    
    Regards,
    
    Marco Schmidt
    Policy Development Officer
    RIPE NCC 
    
    Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
    
    
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.