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

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 09:14:47AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
> On 1/26/11 8:28 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>> 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.
> Agree.
>
> On the other hand, it took me 20 seconds to find it.
>
> For everyone reference and help (saving 20 seconds):
> http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html

Under 3.0 section there is:
"When needed, more specific inet6num objects are allowed to indicate a
different assignment size within a certain range however only one level
of more specifics is allowed."

However rules put into 4.0 section allows to create multiple levels of
inet6num objects with AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status. Is it ok?

Piotr

-- 
gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski
E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl