[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-5: IPv6 HD ratio

[Edward Lewis]

At 10:29 +0100 5/26/05, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
>>  >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huston-ipv6-hd-metric-00.txt
>
>>   I would therefore encourage PPML'ers to help get the draft
>>  through to the RFC Editor to become a document that can be
>>  permanently referenced.)
>
>That sounds like an awfully convoluted process. Is there some
>law preventing ARIN from copying that document to its own servers
>so that it can be referenced by the people making decisions on
>ARIN policy? If the IETF sees some reason to make this into
>an RFC before ARIN makes its policy decision, that is nice,
>but I don't think we should make ARIN's decisions dependent on
>the IETF's publishing decisions or their system of classifying
>publications.

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't touch the question about law.

Here is the reality though.

1) The URL is temporal.  What is there will disappear in a few 
months.  Just for the sake of being able to read it the week before 
the ARIN meeting, it has to available somewhere else.

2) If the document is updated (and it probably will, if just to 
correct some simple typographical errors), the location of the 
document will change (-01, -02, etc.)  Once the new edition is out, 
the old edition is pulled - so, say that comments contributed get 
Geoff to make an update on June 31st, the above URL will become a 
dead pointer before the expiration of the document.  (Yes, June 31st 
- a fake date.)

3) An Internet Draft is a document that has no offer of vetting. 
E.g., let's say Geoff's calculator is wrong - there's no telling in 
the document.  An RFC is a document that has gone through some 
review, meaning it is somewhat vetted.

I should add that the vetting and permanent storage of the document 
need to be accomplished in the IETF.  But as far as I know, there is 
no ARIN document series as of now.  (There is a RIPE document 
series.)  What I am encouraging is that this document be vetted and 
put into a permanent location, possibly within the the IETF, possibly 
in some other form recognized by ARIN.

I have already sent comments to Geoff.  All I am asking is that 
others read the document and if you feel the need to send in 
comments, do so.  (For example, the selection of 0.94 is not clearly 
identified as the best choice in Geoff's document.  Why not 0.93 or 
0.95?)

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.