JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
There is no way in the PDP to "freeze" a discussion.
Then we either introduce that notion, or we reject this proposal.
In fact keeping the discussion period extended, and just not being pro-active in the discussion may act as a way to "freeze" it, and that's what I'm trying, but emails like this don't help that path.
Instead of claiming that the discussion is extended then simply say that it is frozen. Why try to lie about it by calling it differently?
IANA is just one choice, and as I don't agree is the best one, this is why I'm proposing this policy.
You are currently the only one proposing this policy.
When the next version of the ID is released, then you will see an update of the current policy proposal text.
Then simply FREEZE this current one. Marking it as 'under discussion' is useless as there can't be any discussion about something which is not decided on. JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The IETF has never rejected this. It was just postponed.
Expired and dropped. Which can be read as rejected. Clearly not enough people in the IETF thought it was useful.
In addition to that, once more, there is nothing in the PDP that precludes for following something that is not IETF RFC, and this has been clear in many emails before this one.
Most people will actually agree with the simple thing that the RIR's should not do anything that the IETF does not want them to do yet.
Actually whoever is stating something like this at this point, in my opinion is trying to manipulate the PDP.
One does not have to take the wordings that literal. Laws are also applied on a per-case basis, as the PDP is sort of a 'law book' in your eyes, consider this one also on this per-case basis. Greets, Jeroen