[ note change of subject ]
If there is no prior policy, people will automatically consider something new as _the_ policy, and start to forget that there might be other options..
That is, so that 2 years down the road if you as an IX have address space needs that can't be met with the proposed solution, won't (necessarily/always) be met with "Sorry, this is how we allocate addresses to IX's. Have a good day." because people forgot it was only supposed to be _a_ way.
I'm not saying that that would happen, but opinions on what the policy was all about might change in 6, 12, 18 or whatever months unless some kind of "applicability statement" is added.
The last RIPE IPv6 allocation policy is from 1999. Who thought it would last this long? Who knows how long the interim policy would be active? It's better not to take chances.
it is all i can do to get my job done dealing with reality. worrying about black helicopters, martian landings, etc. requires more time and paranoia than i can manage. yup, we need a new v6 lir allocation policy. yup, we saw proposals for a new global v6 allocation policy at apnic. there may be a gap between the apnic view and others, they prefer a /29 starting allocation, which even steve deering thinks is too large. imiho, a /35 or a /36 is more in scale and sellable in the west. but i may be full of it. we'll be discussing the issues in prague and miami next month. in the meantime, check out <http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/sigs/joint_ipv6.html> randy