[ppml] the "other" policy proposals

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_7.html

Undecided

Q: if I did support the proposal, I'd make the new text

can justify intent to announce the requested IPv6 address space within one year

I don't think that this has to be an organization "new" to the business.

But I wonder what the intent is - is this supposed to be the means 
for getting Provider Independent space?  I'd really be cautious about 
allowing this new avenue to be open only to those unfamiliar with the 
Internet.

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_1.html
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_2.html
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_3.html

For as much as is on the surface, but against if the method appears in WhoIs.

This is a dumb question, but these are to be implemented in order, 1, 
2, 3, and if 1 is not approved 2 fails, if 2 fails, 3 fails, right?

"Because the specific wording of the documentation may be subject to 
debate, and is in no way interdependent upon the documentation of the 
other two methods, it is being proposed in a separate policy, so that 
consensus may be more easily reached." ... but the "intentionally 
left blank" comments are interdependent and the "UPDATES TO" in the 
first policy mention the other two approaches.

Will ARIN match the security mechanism used in the response to the 
security of the object?  If a POC uses PGP, ARIN responds with PGP, 
if the POC uses X509, will ARIN?

Will the authentication method in use by a POC be exposed in WhoIs? 
(I hope not, so as not to advertise the mail-from users).

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_4.html

Undecided.

I don't know.  Has the policy really been changed - or maybe I should 
ask, does ARIN have interim policies?

Is RFC 2373bis now RFC 3513?  Are the references up to date?

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_5.html

For.

This I am for - I think that ARIN policies ought to care solely about 
the justification to get more space (or retain space) and not how 
assigned/allocated space is redelegated.

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_6.html

For.

Sounds good too - speaking not from hands-on experience, if a user 
only needs a /24 meaning that's enough for their addressing needs and 
they can get someone to route it, then why waste 75%?  I did have an 
earlier question on this (whether it is true that a /24 is considered 
"always" routable.)

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_7.html

For this one, my earlier question was answered.

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_8.html

Undecided.  This caused a lot of concern on my part.  I'd have to go 
reread what I already wrote a month back.

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_9.html

For that one.

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_10.html

For that.

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_11.html

Fer that.

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_12.html

Comments elsewhere...
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Sarcasm doesn't scale.