[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)

On Sep 8, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:

> 
> On 8 sep 2010, at 15:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
> 
>> Thus wrote Denis Walker (denis at ripe.net):
>> 
>>> Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>>>> On Sep 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, <kpn-ip-office at kpn.com> <kpn-ip-office at kpn.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have some questions about the proposal
>>>>> Question 1:
>>>>> Why was chosen for "SUB-ASSIGNED PA" and not for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or even "LIR-PARTITIONED PA", [...]
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> One is to
>>> aggregate many individual customers into an assignment block.
>> 
>> It's a rather bikeshedding issue, but maybe pick AGGREGATED PA?
>> LIR-PARTITIONED PA would also be easily understandable, but is a mouthful. :)
> 
> 
> I was about to come with the same suggestion. As said, the current one basically is just a placeholder as we needed something in the revision 1 document.
> 
> 'AGGREGATED XX' is pretty much unique and clearly describes the whole purpose.


How do people feel about AGGREGATED-BY-LIR ? Stays in line with the current ones and describes the purpose.

Grtx

Marco