Are there any further comments on this policy before we discuss this in the
Policy SIG meeting tomorrow?
To update, I believe those who have expressed support for the vserion 4
draft as it stands (with "reasonable technical justification") are:
- Dean Pemberton
- Mark Foster
- Randy Whitney
- Aftab Siddiqui
- Terry Manderson
- Yi Chu
I am still only aware of Terence Zhang desiring a change of the draft to
more explicit criteria.
Would anyone else like to comment on the proposal draft (v4) before the
meeting, one way or the other?
Thanks, David
On 17/08/2012 10:32 AM, David Woodgate wrote:
Since its release in March, I believe that I've seen clear statements
on this list of support for the current draft (v4) of proposal 101 from:
- Dean Pemberton
- Mark Foster
- Randy Whitney
- Aftab Siddiqui
(There have been others who supported previous versions, and others I
feel have implied but not directly stated support - I have not wanted
to make assumptions of support for the current draft without clear
statements. I apologise to anyone that I've missed or accidentally
misrepresented; please correct my statements if I have.)
I am only aware of Terence Zhang as actively not supporting the
current draft, and - as has been discussed on the list - I believe he
supports the overall proposal concept but he is concerned that only a
"reasonable technical justification" is proposed, rather than more
specific criteria, on the basis that it may lead to overly generous
interpretations which could lead to massive numbers of portable
allocations which could greatly increase the global routing table size.
I have suggested alterations to the draft to make the justification
criteria specific, which I believe Terence supports (perhaps with some
question over also including multihoming), but others on the list have
so far not done so (and there have been two indications of preference
to leave it as "reasonable technical justification").
I suggest that more clear feedback is required to be able to truly
indicate the community feeling; would anyone else be prepared to
either declare their support for the draft as it stands, or to suggest
further changes (including support for the specific criteria that
Terence is seeking)?
With many thanks,
David Woodgate
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
