In message <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D2B@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>, at 07:52:34 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> writes
Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time).
I have to disagree. I don't think there was any "considerable time."
ripe-196 was published in mid-1999 and documented the "Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy." It was called the "bootstrap" policy at the time and was intended as a 'shakedown' to allow the first 100 allocations across all three RIR regions (this was before LACNIC and then AFRINIC achieved recognition, in-line with ICP-2). The idea was to find out what was good and what needed to change for a more permanent policy. It was an experiment.
At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had been developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As you note, it did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about six weeks later, with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which documented "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points."
I remember this being an issue at RIPE meetings in 2000. But aside from the fog over the timescale, can you give us a quick run-down of the relevance to this issue of "running code"? After all, the purpose of this list (and the WG) is to foster co-operation and capacity building with other stakeholder groups not familiar with IETF (and other technical) jargon. -- Roland Perry