Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy

> 
> >> 3) The authors are revising the document to reflect some important
> >> understandings about responsibility for administration of the bits to the
> >> left of the /48 dividing line, consistent with presentations made to the
> >> ARIN Public Policy meeting.  This draft does not reflect those changes.
> >
> >	The proposed changes are significant enough that it obscures 
> >	the inital premise, i.e. /48 is a good first cut. The IESG
> >	proposal is not based on operational experience but is a rough
> >	draft of what might be reasonable, after the experiences w/ the
> >	/48 have been collected. I beleive that we should consider the
> >	new IESG proposal in the 3rd or 4th quarter of this year...
> >	AFTER we get the first policy in play.
> 
> 
> The new draft is not expected to differ from the old in setting the
> dividing line at /48.

	True. However there is a fair amount of debate/discussion on
	opening up the bits to the left. The presumption is that the
	/48 is a done deal and for ARIN, its not yet.  Hence my desire
	to proceed with the package (nearly) as currently stated.
	I don;t beleive we will have an RFC of this topic ready before
	the board is ready to consider the proposed policy and so
	in referencing material that is, in another fourm, still in
	draft format, should not be a significant problem. It was not
	a problem for APNIC or RIPE.
--bill