[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
Chris Woodfield
chris at semihuman.com
Thu Sep 28 14:09:16 EDT 2017
I think we’re talking about the difference between “editorial change” and “minor change”. And editorial change, as I understand it, requires no PPM consensus, which isn’t what we’re discussing here.
I’d agree with your point that staff would probably be the best arbiters of the implementation changes, which would in turn guide as to whether it’s acceptable to discuss the word change and move forward at PPM, or to require additional consultation if the community consensus is to require the change before adoption. Staff has guided on the practical implications of the change; it’s up to the community to decide whether or not that’s a desired outcome.
I’d presume that if the proposal is adopted as written, there are several people primed to submit a new policy proposal to change “should” to “shall”. That, in my opinion, is a very reasonable path forward as well.
-C
> On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca> wrote:
>
> Chris, <>
>
> I have had a difference of opinion in the past, with members of the community, with what constitutes an editorial change. I have always erred on the side of caution.
>
> While I’m indifferent to the options, I am strongly in support of this policy moving forward.
>
> If there is a chance that the change will be questioned during last call, and prevent the policy from moving forward, I’m opposed to any alteration.
>
> I believe that staff have shown significant implementation differences between the two words.
>
> Some assistance from the Advisory Council and/or Staff to the community as what would constitute an editorial change would probably be helpful.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin Blumberg
>
> From: Chris Woodfield [mailto:chris at semihuman.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 1:21 PM
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Cc: Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
>
> I agree with Owen’s assessment. If there is sufficient community support for changing the phrase to “shall” at the PPM - I’d define “sufficient community support” as a show of hands on that specific word choice, in addition to the discussion here - I see no need to require another public consultation in order to go to last call incorporating that change in terms.
>
> I’m personally in favor of “shall", although I still support as written. Perfect as enemy of good, etc etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -C
>
> On Sep 28, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>
> While I wouldn’t consider it an editorial change, I would consider it a minor change, which, if it had good community discussion and support at the meeting, would, IMHO, be within the scope of pre-last-call changes that could be made between the PPM and last call.
>
> The AC has, as has been mentioned before, significant discretion in determining what is a “minor change”.
>
> This is strictly my own opinion and may or may not be shared by other AC members, staff, or anyone else.
>
> Owen
>
> On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca <mailto:kevinb at thewire.ca>> wrote:
>
> I support the policy as written.
>
> If the stick isn’t big enough it appears a simple policy change could be used, not just for this section but all the other areas “should” is used.
>
> I would like to point out that “should” is currently used 30 times in the NRPM.
>
> In reading John’s explanation, I can’t see “should” and “shall” being considered an editorial change. To extend the policy cycle to another meeting would be far worse.
>
> Out of curiosity, how often has ARIN had to deal with SWIP issues like this, where the other party ignored you?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin Blumberg
>
>
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM
> To: Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com <mailto:jschiller at google.com>>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
>
> On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com <mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:
>
> I oppose as written.
>
> There should not be a different standard of requirement for:
> - re-allocation
> - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses
> - subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced
>
> which is "shall"
>
> and Registration Requested by Recipient
>
> which is "should"
>
> I would support if they are both "shall".
>
> Can ARIN staff discuss what actions it will take if an ISP's
> down stream customer contacts them and explains that their
> ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them?
>
> Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell
> them they "should" SWIP it?
>
> Jason -
>
> If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that has IPv6 space from ARIN
> but routinely fails to publish registration information (for /47 or larger reassignments)
> would be in violation, and ARIN would have clear policy language that would enable
> us to discuss with the ISP the need to publish this information in a timely manner.
>
> Service providers who blatantly ignore such a provision on an ongoing basis will be
> in the enviable position of hearing me chat with them about their obligations to follow
> ARIN number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential revocation
> of the IPv6 number resources.)
>
> If the langauge for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient”
> reads “… the ISP should register that assignment”, then ARIN would send on any
> received customer complaint to the ISP, and remind the ISP that they should
> follow number resource policy in this regard but not otherwise taking any action.
>
> If the language for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient”
> reads “… the ISP shall register that assignment”, then failure to do so would be
> a far more serious matter that, if left unaddressed on a chronic manner, could have
> me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure to comply with
> number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential revocation of
> the IPv6 number resources.)
>
> I would note that the community should be very clear about its intentions for ISPs
> with regard to customer requested reassignment publication, given there is large
> difference in obligations that result from policy language choice. ARIN staff remains,
> as always, looking forward to implementing whatever policy emerges from the
> consensus-based policy development process.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170928/76568996/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list