Are there any further comments on this policy before we discuss this in the Policy SIG meeting tomorrow?

andy

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:34 PM, David Woodgate <dwoodgate5@gmail.com> wrote:

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:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy