[6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003

[Bill Manning]

% On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 06:37:55PM -0600, phrost wrote:
% > I would accept a reply of "We are having physical connection
% > problems and are unable to advertise our prefix at the current time".
% 
% How would that be in compliance with RFC2772, Section 7, point 2?
% 
% "The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide
% "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service."
% 
% Someone not announcing the route for several months obviously neither
% intends nor is able to provide any backbone service, let alone
% "production-quality".
% 
% I'm actually quite curious what the outcome of this discussion
% will be...
% 
% 
% Regards,
% Daniel


	For a number of pTLA holders, the delegations were made 
	well prior to RFC 2772 being released. Historically, 
	delegations (of any sort, including IPv4) were only bound
	by the rules in effect when the delegations were made.

	There have been, over the past 15 years, a number of instances
	where due to funding, internal direction, etc. organizations will
	place R&E and development projects on hold for months or years.  
	
	This proposal, as I understand it) will remove delegations
	without recourse.  Seems a bit heavy-handed to me, esp. given
	the large number of other choices available.


--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).