[lir-wg] RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects

Hi Geoff and all,

(speaking for APNIC here)

While policy changes are always possible, I'd like to point out that the
terms "Allocation" and "Assignment" are well defined within the APNIC
policy framework, and those definitions reflect meanings which have been
fairly well agreed for some time (at least since the publication of
RFC2050).  The terms are very widely used throughout APNIC policy,
training and other documentation, and in a manner which is consistent
with the definitions.

As for "Delegation", this term is used more loosely in various
documents, and as a general term for transferring responsibility for
address space, through *either* allocation or assignment. We sometimes
use the word "distribution" with the same meaning. You can see RFC2050
for examples of both.

Dictionary definitions are interesting, and while I would like as much
consistency as possible with them, I'd also argue that these terms now
have a life of their own and a legitimacy within our own specific
context.  Unless there is a very good reason to replace the term
"allocate" with "delegate" as proposed, we should bear in mind that the
cost of making this change would be very substantial, and may well
outweigh the benefits.

Regards,

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net                            ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net 
> [mailto:owner-apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 10:03 PM
> To: Guy Davies; 'Nigel Titley'; Daniel Karrenberg
> Cc: Anne Lord; Joao Luis Silva Damas; ipv6-wg at ripe.net; 
> lir-wg at ripe.net; db-wg at ripe.net; sig-db at lists.apnic.net; 
> sig-policy at lists.apnic.net; apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net
> Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
> 
> 
> 
> >I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even
> >plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know
> >they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-)  It also makes
> >clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are
> >exactly that.  That way, an individual who is struggling with English
> >as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be
> >absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses.
> 
> 
> For me these two phrases, DELEGATED-TO-LIR and
> ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER, hit the spot precisely!
> 
> excellent suggestion Guy!
> 
> Is it appropriate to request consideration of these terms as 
> replacements
> for ASSIGNED and ALLOCATED?
> 
> 
> Geoff
> 
> 
> *              APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List             *
> * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic.net *
>