Hello Gert,
Why do you think duplicating the definition of "end site" is needed, or reasonable? This is a definition of a legal or physical entity, it needs to be totally independent of "what are you going to do with it".
First, end-site is _not_ a definition of a "legal or physical entity", see the discussion that, for example, may make two physically distinct locations one end-site; It is more a description of a relationship of an entity needing addresses to those physical/topological locations. This also leads to the core of the issue, why I want to separate this definition: 'end-site' is interwoven with assignment policies. However, the addressing needs between PI and PA holders differ, mostly due to the nature of PI as an independently routed resource. An 'end- site' for PA may very well be a single host (there may be two CPEs in a single physical end-site), while for PI that end-site should only get a single /48. Similarly, there is a major concern about PI being abused by ISPs for providing dialup/ISP services with PI. Splitting the end-site definitions between PA and PI makes it significantly easier to clearly distinguish that.
I promised to send more review and will...
As I said before, really appreciated! Also, please do not understand the following as criticism. I just want to highlight the difficult situation delayed feedback puts me in as a proposer. However, the PDP has several deadlines that need to be held, and I already have Angela in my inbox asking how I want to proceed. ;-) I understand that this likely is 'one of those things that is really important, and I need to get to it, but then suddenly $dayjob and $everything-else reality hit' for you (which i sadly have too many of as well); However, if the input comes too late it makes it difficult to handle it within the PDP framework. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias@fiebig.nl