[address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04

Hi,

> Below in-line.

Please use normal quoting, I have trouble reading your emails.

> Right, but 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to provide a separate address ..." and 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and services ..." furthermore it say "... provided no prefixes will be provided to other entities ..." I think this can be sorted out replacing in the IA "provided no more than a single prefix will be provided to other entities."

No, that would drastically change the policy, and that has been looked at before. It was then decided that that is not the right approach.

> I used the technology as an example, what I'm referring is if the single prefix can be shared by other devices of the user of a hot-spot (example, the hotel gives me a single /64 in the WiFi, but I've several devices). The point here is, clarification 2 above will solve the problem for multiple addresses in a single prefix, 3) may solve the problem for multiple devices with the same prefix. For both of them we may need to clarify if Max "not prefixes" is meaning also a single prefix or "not multiple prefixes", which is I think the major contradiction with the IA or NCC interpretation according to mail exchange with Marco.

Sorry, what someone does with addresses is completely out of scope here.

Cheers,
Sander