On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: >> I understand the cost issues involved. However, the RPKI ROAs and the >> registration of the non-exclusive users of the prefix is what >> distinguished this from a special-purpose allocation that needs IETF >> Review to be made. If you remove that part of the proposal then you >> should include how you intend to proceed on the issue of IETF Review, >> or clarify how this is not a special-purpose allocation that needs >> IETF Review. > > always good to have folk from outside the region telling everyone what > they SHOULD do. >
I agree with David and I represent an APNIC member, so you can’t really consider me “outside the region”. At best, those provisions are an invitation to abuse. In reality, this policy really is an attempt at an end-run on the IETF process for special use address space. The RPKI/Registration requirements attempt to legitimize that end-run. Owen * 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
