retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules

[Peter Curran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bob

I support the criteria that you have established for the creation of new
pTLAs.  

I think that the application by BT-Labs should go ahead - they clearly meet
the criteria that you have established.

I think the drawback to approaching the list every time a new pTLA is
proposed or requested is that 'concensus' is likely to be based on only a
couple of guys putting an opinion forward.  Would it not be more sensible
to approve pTLA assignment for organisations such as BT-Labs who clearly
meet the criteria without reference to the list.  I think that you should
request judgement from the 6bone community only if there is some doubt
about the qualifications of the applicant or where some of the criteria are
not wholly met.

Whilst on the subject, is it not time to start bearing down on those
backbone sites that have a pTLA assigned, but do not appear to be following
the 'rules'?  For example, I still find the odd RFC1897 address popping up
when I do a traceroute across the backbone.  Likewise, some sites would
appear to be semi-permamently disconnected - from a couple of discussions
with other sites this would appear to be caused by inappropriate routing
policies.

My 2p-worth

Peter
TICL/UK


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.2

iQA/AwUBNOA5FpwudNbgUX8fEQLkJgCffv91sm4Vb976koSzkYHwg9Y/z6EAoJ66
IkpInzIWCkj4ucexp8vKR5Cm
=6hUO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----