[ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call

Some feedback:

<>
As an example, one would create <provider-tla>::/36 with an assignment
size of /56. A simple MRTG graph over time showing the actual number of
assignments or customers can then be generated from the OSS/BSS system
or maybe even directly from the DHCPv6 servers involved. This would then
satisfy the need to verify the addresses are used efficiently enough and
the LIR meets the HD ratio required. It does so in a way to which most
LIRs are already familiar and without the need to disclose to any
specific information on individual End Users or the resource they hold.
<>

GV> Not sure why this is here in the intro... it's a valid and usefull
anticipation, but I would place it somewhere else in the document as a
motivation example.

<>start<>
1.0 Motivation
...
keep records of IPv6 address assignments
...
<>end<>

GV> What about using 'IPv6 subnet address assignments'?
(I don't care about individual addresses in v6, but care about subnet
addresses being used and the HD is calculated on that variable, not?)


<>start<>
4.0 Functionality
...
object may contain
...
<>end<>

GV>Is there a reason why it's a 'may' instead of a 'should' or 'must'?

<>start<>
5.5 Registration
...
End Site assignments
...
<>end<>

GV> What is an End-site assignment? If it's a SP doing this then I
assume it is enterprise 
customer, however if it's an enterprise getting PI space, then what is
end-site assignment? 
Maybe a loaded/naive question, but why not suggest anything larger then
a /xx should be placed in the database?

Ciao,
G/





-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Daniel Roesen
Sent: woensdag 26 januari 2011 8:28
To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:40:54PM -0800, David Kessens wrote:
> We have not received any input so far whether you support draft policy
> 2010-06.

Perhaps it's a good idea to at least mention the title of the policy
proposal in the "last call" announcements so that folks can quickly
check wether they might have an opinion to voice or not. Just dropping a
proposal number and expecting all readers to use their web browser to
find out what this 1234-56 is all about does probably act as a factual
barrier. I know it does for me, not being paid for following RIPE
mailing lists in detail.

Just a suggestion.

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0