[address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

Hi,

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:59:39PM +0100, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
> well, doesn't say so in the subject line, and cannot be done
> anyway: there is no difference between "to assign" and "to assign".
> 2.6 (was and) is a definition valid for any IPv6 assignment, be it
> PI, IXP, Anycast, whatever.

Well, strictly speaking, a new version of Jordi's 2018-02 *could* change
terminology to avoid using the term "(sub-)assignment" for the IPv6 PI 
case, and just describe what the holder is allowed/expected to do with it.

OTOH: 

> How the RIPE NCC understands the, now current, policy text has been pointed out as part of 2016-04 [1] ("A. RIPE NCC's Understanding of the Proposed Policy"). That "understanding" to me is "good enough" with regard to what 2.6 currently reads. Please re-read that clarification, it's important ??? obviously you _still_ missed that there is no difference between PIv6 and non-PIv6 in terms of (sub-) assignment. That suggests that, if you're an LIR, an ISP, or an End User, you're probably not assigning/using assigned address space as per policy.

... this is a fairly clear "the current policy text is good enough"
statement to me... :-)

So, before going off into "oh, nice idea how to change the wording!" land,
let's hear more voices on whether people here in the WG actually see the
need for change...

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- 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/20190120/0218a9f6/attachment.sig>