<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Notes inline<br>
<br>
On 2/12/2018 10:31 AM, David Farmer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau1ZDJoAPO4-XJTyzGCu4u7YXUL0cf20NKNN00sybgzrPg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">I need more input from the community on this one.
Unless you are one of the two people who has responded already,
please take time to respond to the following questions.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you.<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM,
David Farmer <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" moz-do-not-send="true">farmer@umn.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">There seems to be a bit of controversy on
the direction to take this policy. Therefore as the
shepherd, it would be helpful to hear from additional
community members regarding this policy.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do you support or oppose the policy as written? <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Oppose<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau1ZDJoAPO4-XJTyzGCu4u7YXUL0cf20NKNN00sybgzrPg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do you think the inconsistency described in the
Problem Statement should be corrected?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
No<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau1ZDJoAPO4-XJTyzGCu4u7YXUL0cf20NKNN00sybgzrPg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>If yes, should it be corrected by revising by
section 8.5.4 to be consistent with section 4.2.2,
as proposed by the current text?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Or, as an alternative by revising section 4.2.2
to be consistent with section 8.5.4?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Are there other alternatives to correct the
inconsistency to be considered?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Other suggestions or comments?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I authored this proposal to bring up the issue as noted in the
policy experience report at the last meeting. While I initially
believed this was an inconsistency that should be corrected, I no
longer feel this is the case after weighing the discussion by other
community members. I believe that the current transfer policy
requirements for an initial block larger than a /24 as found in
8.5.5 are simple and can be easily accomplished by an organization
which desires to transfer a block larger than a /24. Adding
additional complexity to the transfer policy is not desired to
correct a small inconsistency with the largely obsolete section 4
allocation policy.<br>
<br>
I do however believe a discussion should be held at the next public
policy meeting and if a solid direction cannot be found on this
issue, the AC should abandon this draft.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>