> On 17 May 2016, at 13:08, Remco van Mook <[email protected]> wrote: > > The proposal doesn't aim to change a lot about the *intended* goals of the > last /8 policy - instead, it tries to clarify the current policy and lock it > down against creative interpretations. > > ... > > Let's hear your thoughts.
I broadly agree with Nick’s position. The clarifying part of 2016-03 should be put into a separate proposal. ie The current IPv4 allocation policy applies to all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA. This tweak is just good housekeeping and should be non-controversial. I hope that a new proposal along those lines would get consensus and be quickly adopted since it’s clarifying some unintended confusion in the current policy text. While I am sort of in agreement with some of the other aspects of 2016-03, these should go into into another proposal because those ideas may well run into troubled waters. It would be a pity if the above clarification got held up because of the likely squabbling over 2016-03’s suggestions on transfers and return of space. It would be better if those two different strands didn’t have to share the same fate. They’re orthogonal to each other too. Consider this a “meh” on 2016-03. I don’t support the proposal but I don’t object to it either.
