[CRISP-TEAM] Input for discussion: a drafty-draft

[Ernest]

Izumi Okutani wrote thus on 12/11/14, 1:06 PM:
>> I also think that while editorial suggestions are fine and
>> welcome, the
>> priority should perhaps be given to highlighting substantive issues
>> other team members see with the proposed arrangements in this
>> draft. If
>> we can distill those here on the list, we can have a more productive
>> discussion at the call today, IMO.
> 
> Good suggestion Andrei. This would indeed be helpful.
> 
> I'd also like to point out that the comparison of RIR proposals sent
> by Craig (Summary of RIR proposals.pdf) may be helpful in
> highlighting the difference and key issues, to consider your comments.
> 
>> Of course if there are no major issues and we just need to polish the
>> existing text - that is even better!
> 
> :)

One issue I did not see discussed yet is around .arpa - I recall the
NRO EC suggested the CRISP team appoints a liaison to the IETF to
ensure that the proposal from IETF meets the numbering's community's
expectations as far as .arpa is concerned.

For the drafting team - one minor typo in page 2 of the proposal -
“IPv6.ARPA” needs to change to "ip6.arpa".

regards
ernest