[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Dear AP WG,

so, the extended discussion phase ended some two weeks ago, and this is
our conclusion: 

 - there were some voices that state "this is not going far enough, we
   should do a proper and more encompassing IPv6 policy review".  

   We've had the question on "shall we go there?" on the list, and 
   while there was some support, there was also some opposition to a 
   more general reorganization, so we're not going to this *in the scope 
   of this proposal*.  We can (and I assume we will :) ) return to the
   wider topic with more consideration in a separate proposal.

 - there was one voice that said "we have no problem with the policy here, 
   we do not need to do anything!" - which I considered addressed due to
   the NCC stating that they need better guidance

 - there were quite a number of supportive voices
 
    - some of them expressing (in their own words) that we should go 
      for the basic fix *now*, and we can always come back and improve
      things later on

Thus, I declare that we have consensus according to PDP.

With that, we move 2016-04 to Last Call.  Marco will send the formal 
announcement for that in the next days.

For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or 
something else) in the previous review phase is appended below.  This is
what I have based my decision on.

If you disagree with my interpretation of what has been said and the
conclusion I have drawn from it, please let us know.

Gert Doering,
        Address Policy WG Chair


Review Phase for V2.0, starting October 19, 2017
(extended once, to December 27)

During the last Review Phase X persons stated their support for this latest
version of 2016-04:

Ondrej Caletka    (with a remark about the risk of operator-abuse)
Nick Hilliard
David Farmer      (supporting the policy, but would prefer different language)
Sebastian Wiesinger
Erik Bais         (supporting any less restrictive PI policy, as long as the
                   "no documentation = /48" limit is kept)
Richard Hartmann
Sebastian Becker
Matthias Kluth
Leon Weber
Arash Naderpour
Peter Hessler 


The following persons offered remarks, or asked for clarification

Leo Vegoda, on "how does the RIPE NCC allocation algorithm work"
  (answered by Gert Doering, Andrea Cima.  Followup question by 
   Maximilian Wilhelm about PI assignment and reservations did not
   get an anwer, but since that sub-thread was mostly curiosity, I do
   not see it as directly relevant for consensus)


The following people opposed the proposal:

Jordi Palet, on the ground that "we want a better solution than just an
             intermediate step, and this would be a complication"
 
  based on this, the WG chair started a sub-discussion "where does the
  WG want to go?" and there was no strong support to go to a stronger
  change (in particular for "removing the PI sub-assignment restrictions
  competely") - some support, but also very clear concern and opposition

  Comments on that sub-thread:

     Elvis Daniel Valea - asking for clarification
     Maximilian Wilhelm - "likes the idea, but thinks this will take
                          longer, so go with 2016-04 v2.0 as it is *now*"
     Elvis Daniel Valea - "this is just a patch, we can do better"
                          (supporting Jordi's extended proposal)
     Sebastian Wiesinger - "support 2016-04 as is, do not hold it up"
     Nick Hilliard - "this would be a substantial change and needs 
                      a good deal more attention" (I read: do not go there)
        (a bit more sub-sub-thread Jordi<->Nick, solidifying the "do not
         go there" stance)
     Erik Bais - "remove as much of the restriction as possible, but keep
                  the /48 PI limit" - which I read as "general support"

  One of the opposing remark was that this would prevent "unique prefix 
  per host" style allocations, but that was addressed by Marco at the 
  APWG meeting already - the RS interpretation is "this would work".


Kai Siering - "we do not need this, the NCC is interpreting the policy
  all wrong".  As nobody else sees it that way, the chairs consider this
  objection addressed.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180112/f123dd2c/attachment.sig>