Hello APWG, I would like to stress that version 2.0 of the proposal brings no substantial changes. The effective proposed policy remains the exact same. The changes since version 1.0 are all either editorial (language improvements, etc.), further removal of "dead"/obsolete policy text that was overlooked in version 1.0, and ensuring that the proposal does not accidentally create ambiguities. I elaborate on some of those individual changes below. I'd like to thank (in alphabetical order) the following people for providing the feedback that lead to these changes: Alex Le Heux, Marco Schmidt, and Richard Hartmann. I'd also like to remind the working group that the start of the Review Phase means that any feedback given during the Discussion Phase is voided. In other words: If you voiced an opinion on the proposal during the Discussion Phase, you will need to repeat your opinion again during the Review Phase in order for your voice to be counted.
- Additional wording has been added to explicitly state that PI space cannot be reassigned or further assigned to other parties (see section 7.0 for ASSIGNED PI).
The wording that prohibits PI space from being reassigned of or further assigned is already present in the current policy. However it is "buried" within a larger block text that discusses whether an operator should choose PA or PI space. Following the implementation of the last /8 policy, this choice does no longer exist, and 2013-03 therefore removed the entire block of text. It was pointed out to me that this caused the "reassignability" of PI space to be undefined, which was never an intended consequence of the proposal. Therefore version 2.0 adds back this particular wording.
- The third point from the last /8 policy (section 5.1) has been removed, as this is considered a meaningless circular reference by the author.
Actually it was Marco Schmidt from the RIPE NCC's Policy Development Office that made this observation. I concur, though. The last /8 policy is currently a weird "odd man out" policy, located all by itself in section 5.6 and partially superseding the "normal" allocation policy (sections 5.0 through 5.5). The third bullet point of the last /8 policy essentially made sure that the (non-superseded) provisions from the "normal" allocation policy were imported into the last /8 policy. 2013-03 merges the last /8 policy into the "normal" allocation policy, ensuring there is only one unified allocation policy. Therefore there is no need for such an "import provisions from the normal policy" statement, as this would essentially be a circular, and thus meaningless, reference. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson