"As far as John's comment, this proposal began with a suggestion that changed the v4 requirement as well, making both "more than 16" networks or IPv4 addresses. Since changing the v4 language from 8 addresses to more than 16 addresses was clearly not desired by the community, the v4 language was removed from the draft. The comments still reflect that the equality of the policy between v4 and v6 was the original idea. You are correct that this draft now is only about changing the v6 part. Are you suggesting that the older portions of description that are no longer in it, due to the community input needs to be removed?"
Needs? No. The older parts of the problem statement referencing V4 and disparity are, in my view, vestigial and irrelevant at best, but do not actively disqualify the Draft Proposal from being technically sound and enabling fair and impartial number policy. It may be felt that the older parts need to remain to somehow entice further community support. I don't think that is optimum, but whatever. At this point, I think it would be cleaner to modify the Problem Statement and Author Comments to reflect only the current Policy statement intent, but that is not my decision. I am still, somewhat reluctantly, in support. John Springer
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
