[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Remco,

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:

> I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different from the first version.

I have read version 2, also in comparison with version 1. Thanks for removing
the DNS and route: objects restrictions.

> Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 space"* going forward, and there is some language added to the policy that tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that entire allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple of years from now.

while the intent is laudable, making it a requirement under 5.1 mixes
the formal part and the informational in a confusing way.  That said,
does "should reserve at least part of this allocation for interoperability with
networks that are only reachable using IPv4" mean "should assign at least part
of this allocation ... to itself"?

And further along the lines of educational text: the references in section need
some re-adjustment (this isn't new in 2.0, but for good housekeeping) since
RFC 3330 has been finally obsoleted by RFC 6890 (and may or may not be applicable
anyway) and RFC 2993 isn't really the final word on NAT any more, especially
with that earlier remark on "for interoperability with networks that are only
reachable using IPv4".

The clarification part remains complicated because of indirections: 5.3 refers to
5.1 only, but the new "ALLOCATED FINAL" then extends the validity across the
remaining sections.  I'd suggest to give up 5.3 and merge the new text with the
final paragraph of 5.2 accordingly.

-Peter