For those who wish to become involved in the policy process or view the archives: http://www.apnic.net/community/lists/index.html http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html http://lacnic.net/en/discussion_boards.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/about/maillists.html Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ray Plzak > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 10:09 AM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: accusations of cluelessness > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Keith Moore > > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 1:25 AM > > To: Scott Bradner > > Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; ietf@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: accusations of cluelessness > > > > > > > Just what would you suggest in the way of relaxing? > > > > since I view this as a hypothetical situation anyway (and one > > that isn't > > likely to happen in the real world) I don't think it's > > necessary to pin down > > exactly how they'd go about relaxing the criteria - only to > > realize that it is > > possible to relax those criteria > > There are currently several discussions in the ARIN region regarding > IPv4 allocations both in regard to minimum size and criteria. > Discussions about IPv4 policy and IPv6 policy are of a > contiuous nature > in all of the RIRs reflecting changes in the operational community. > > Ray > >