Dear Jan,
Sent from my iPad
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:48 PM, David Farmer
<farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
I'm not introducing anything new, I'm objecting to the removal of something that has always been there, as are others.
As I understand it, there has "always" been a requirement for need. I don't disagree that this is nothing new.
However, you used the phrase "verified operational need", which is something different.
I am a n00b in the RIPE community, so I have certainly not read everything there is, but from what I have seen, read and understand, this verification thing is new.
It is not really new.
I've quoted from the current policy document before and some others too:
"Conservation: Public IPv4 address space must be fairly distributed to the End Users operating networks..."
"Operating networks" is not there for no reason and normally an LIR's network is considered as an end network in the context of having a piece of their overall allocation too.
Also note that this was written at a time when it was all thought that only those people into operational networks (as an LIR helping end users or for their own need..) would become LIRs and ask for space from the NCC. Otherwise if you did not have a network or if you did not have a customer with a network, why would you want to get those IPs in the first place...
Accordingly, what you may be calling as a fuss currently is a deep understanding for a lot of people even if it was not articulated with certain words in the policy text because the policy of the time was written with a certain understanding who the readers of the policy were. Now there is a proposal to change it, and the proposal takes big chunks of that text out and does not bring alternatives, all these subtle, distributed within the text details are to be lost too, while they were there since the beginning.
Filiz