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- Terry Manderson
- Mark Foster
- Randy Whitney
- Aftab Siddiqui
- 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?
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: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list