On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:15 PM, David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Chris, > > On Jun 18, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'm not such a fan of the draft, mostly because it appears to remove >> some principles that some RIR folk hold up in their policy discussions >> as important... while not having a backstop in said policies to >> replace the originals from 2050. > > Which principles are you referencing? at least needs-based allocations... So, I should be clear that I don't 'like' that 'the ietf has dictated' to the community some actions they must take with respect to allocation policy that the RIR communities are supposed to agree upon amongst their individual selves (perhaps coordinated, perhaps not). So I understand why these things (and actually agree with) the removal of these things. I think though there could be perceived a situation where 'oops, no more rules!!' because the RIRs (arin's community at least) hasn't pushed for these items explicitly in their policy manual. (arin has some of this via linkages to 2050 in their PDP.. but not in the community-built nrpm) It's worth noting, to me at least, that the 'no rules!' bit could be viewed as a good thing, and could be a method to pull back as a community and gather some data on how the system reacts. Additonally, it could be the case that the community really does not want this sort of restriction in place in the name of 'making the move to ipv6 happen more quickly and more completely' (a-la burning your ships upon landing in the 'new world'). as a summary: 1) happy to see the principles / restrictions imposed from 'above' on the RIR's removed 2) happy to see the doc move forward 3) interested to see how the communities at the RIR level deal with this 4) sad a bit that the ARIN community (at least) didn't move to put in place protections/restrictions/garter-belts/suspenders/etc before this doc is published. -chris > > Thanks, > -drc >