On 2007-06-19 00:29, Azinger, Marla wrote:
Michael- I dont believe that was the intent and there might be a little
misinterpretation here due to how it was written. The document says:
The designated allocation authority is required to document how they
will meet the requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document
in an RFC.<
This states the RIR's need to document how they will meet the requirements once
section 3.2. It dont believe the author intends for RIR's to write an RFC. I
believe the intent of the sentence you question is actually saying in a round
about way that RIR's need to use their policy process and write policy's that
will meet the requirements stated in section 3.2 of the draft. Thus,
synchronizing the RFC and RIR policy.
Or at least that is what I had discussed on a conference call with R. Hinden
and T. Narten before the revision was made. So Bob or Thomas, correct me if I
am wrong here...
Marla, if your interpretation is correct (and I hope it is)
the words "in an RFC" need to be deleted from the draft.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
