Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal

To: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:46:24 +0500
Cc: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <CALS-_Opn0QzX_ohNORcGdq+g1kMzVcdZgquhExcoJDqiMzHgiQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <CALS-_Opn0QzX_ohNORcGdq+g1kMzVcdZgquhExcoJDqiMzHgiQ@mail.gmail.com>

>1. Introduction
>-------------------

>IPv4 is history, with no need to add more policy. IPv6 is sufficiently
>plentiful that further policies are not needed. So let us agree to make
>no more IP address policies or proposals.

Partially support this proposal. For IPv4 policies and proposals, I guess enough has been said and done. But I believe its too early to block any IPv6 related policies or proposals.

Secondly, who is going to decide the "emergency" criteria, this ML or any WG?

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui