Hello Max, > do you keep track of objections? I have no idea what that boils done > to and would like us to finally get it done, because in any case it > will be better than before.
Yes, we did, and prepared an updated version of the document addressing those. That revision was submitted but received limited engagement on the list. Details on how that version addressed the points in-line. At the moment it > – 7.1.2 forced renumbering is exactly the opposite of what the status > quo is, we may need to water it down even further in terms of proven > deployment This is already rather watered down; But that could be enriched even further to become a bit more soft. > – Selling off end-sites with physical assets and considerable > renumbering burden should be addressed somehow, maybe with an > exception to the sub-assignment policy, temporary transfer or similar Do you have a good text suggestion for that? > – End-site is still too messy for some people The whole end-site discussion has been removed from the proposal in the revision. > – Clarify that multiple end-sites for one PI constitute one > assignment, obvious but there were similar misinterpretations in the > past That should still be in there. > – Clarify the transition for existing holders of multiple PI > without(!) growing space needs There are no implications for existing holders if their space needs do not change. With best regards, Tobias -- Univ.Prof. Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
