Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy

[Jill Kulpinski]

How about:
All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient
utilization of existing IPv4 assignments.  This includes use of HTTP1.1-host
header (name-based) virtual hosting or other efficient methodologies of
address conservation whenever and wherever possible.  If such name-based
virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining the technical
justification for any incompatibilities must be supplied with the
application.


What do you all think of this?
Thanks,
Jill
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at UU.NET]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:11 PM
To: Jill Kulpinski
Cc: 'David R Huberman'; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy


As a matter of keeping me out of hot water, can this be the "Lee Howard
proposal" rather than the "UUNET proposal"?

I think you're right, so let me try rewording it thus:

 All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient
 utilization of existing IPv4 assignments.  When addresses are used for
 web hosting, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1
 host headers whenever possible.  If such name-based virtual hosting is not 
 possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be 
 provided in the application.


I think this is consistent with general opinion on gathering more data
through documentation, but will also let Clay (for instance) be as strict 
as he wants, by saying, "Your documentation is insufficient; this
application can support name-based virtual hosting."

Lee


On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote:

> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:30:09 -0700 
> From: Jill Kulpinski <Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net>
> To: 'David R Huberman' <huberman at gblx.net>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy
> 
> Okay I am a little more clear regarding what is going on here now.  Here
is
> the UUNET proposal:
> Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient
> utilization of existing IPv4 assignments.  Where possible, name-based
> virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers.  If such
> name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why
> it is not possible should be provided in the application.
> 
> Here are my comments:
> I think that this is a succint, clear, to the point statement, but I am
not
> sure that I like 'organizations providing web hosting services'.
Basically,
> ALL organizations need to show efficient use of any IPv4 subnet space.
How
> about just 'organizations'?
> 
> Jill
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David R Huberman [mailto:huberman at gblx.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:08 PM
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote:
> 
> > This whole writing back and forth thing gets very confusing.  At this
> point,
> > I feel we need to get some clear suggestions by the people concerned
> (those
> > writing in), as to exactly what they want the policy to say. 
> 
> Since ARIN VII, we have had *three* distinct policy proposals published on
> this list (one from Exodus, one from UUNET, and one from Global Crossing),
> with ancillary commentary from myself on UUNET's policy proposal and from
> Kevin on my policy proposal.
> 
> Other than additional commentary from those lurking out there, what else
> do you want? The thread so far seems, in my opinion, quite useful as an
> outgrowth of a year's-worth of discussion to-date.
> 
> /david
>