Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy

[Bill Darte]

I have to agree with Bill on this issue.  I do agree that the recommendation
to approve exists relative to the content of the ID reviewed.  Future
documents may form the basis for the recommendation, but not without review
for consistency with the original.  This process is of course what the
policy is all about anyway (as worded). It suggests that there be continual
revisitation, so I see nothing wrong here.
bd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
> [mailto:bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 5:16 PM
> To: smarcus at genuity.com
> Cc: v6wg at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >i suspect that the arin board is competent to deal with that
> > >problem should it arise.
> > 
> > Thanks, Randy.  :-)
> > 
> > Bill, I expect that there will AT LEAST be a later draft.  I'm not
> > proposing to hold this up, just to use the best and most 
> current version as
> > of the date on which the Board takes up the issue.
> > 
> 
> 	That seems reasonable. However there is the possiblity that
> 	the IESG may put into play some material that the 
> membership has not
> 	seen or approved. This has happened before. 
>  	To give tacit approval to any future work that might be 
> 	"best and most current" or may have all sorts of interesting 
> 	modifications and ammendments is not being fair to the 
> membership, 
> 	regardless of the competency of the board or well-meaning IESG 
> 	members. The membership seems to have settled on the policy as 
> 	stated in the current IETF ID.  Not some possible proposed new 
> 	wording. Do you think it is fair to allow such a loophole past 
> 	the members?
> 
> --bill
>