At 02:11 AM 29/12/2005, João Damas wrote:
On 26 Dec, 2005, at 21:28, Geoff Huston wrote:
b) that the proposal replace the term "2 byte" with "16 bit" and "4 byte" with "32 bit" due to the somewhat imprecise nature of the definition of a "byte"
why not use octet, which is the language used in the i-d?
no particular reason - I'm sure in any room half would prefer "bits" and half "octets" I'm personally inclined to use "bits" in preference to "octets"
Other topics of discussion on the ARIN list have been - whether the terminology and nomenclature sessions should be included in the policy proposal
If policy is what decides if a requester gets the resource or not, then no, as this sounds more like local implementation (procedure), like most of the text (except for the dates, perhaps, which set what gets assigned and when)
However it does make the policy proposal clearer to read!
- whether the specification of dates are reasonable in this context
is this a question of whether the suggested dates are appropriate or whether any dates are appropriate?
the latter - the ARIN discussion has appeared to head towards a conclusion that the dates are the critical part of the proposal, and to remove them from the proposal would make the entire exercise somewhat meaningless. I concur with that view.
- whether the policy alters the current sequential number allocation registry practice - the criteria (if any) that should be applied to a request for an AS number of the "other" type - the desireable size of the private use AS number pool
Would the policy need a reference to the IANA as the ultimate caretaker of the registry?
No I do not think so. Nothing else changes in the policy proposal. regards, Geoff