[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Review Process

[John Santos]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, William Herrin wrote:

> On 7/19/07, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, William Herrin wrote:
> > > >    2.  ARIN may conduct such reviews:
> > > e. when a route to the block has not been present in the DFZ for at
> > > least 3 months.
> >
> > e. Does *NOT* mean an address block is not in use.  As has been
> > re-iterated many times, there are many semi-private networks which
> > require non-colliding addresses and are not under the control of
> > a single entity, so RFC1918 addresses are not appropriate.
> 
> Never said it did John; merely suggested that it was a valid reason
> for ARIN to conduct a review for compliance with the policies.

Okay, "e." is a reason for a review, not a reason for revocation.
This sounds like another of those things where after discovering
the reason why, the staff should wait a long time before reviewing
again.  Just like for users who are neither growing nor shrinking.
This situation should *not* trigger a review every 3 months.

I don't have any inkling whether "3 months" is a good or bad time,
except I've been involved in many projects over the years where
there are long lead times and random unaccountable delays, so it
might be too short, and if the review can be repeated every 3 months
it definitely would be.  3 months for an initial review followed by
6 months or a year if the initial review result was "It's not there
yet, but we're working on it..." might be more appropriate.  Or is
this an ARIN staff thing rather than a policy issue?


> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin                  herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> 
> 

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539