[ppml] 2002-02 Address space allocations for experimental pur poses

[Geoff Huston]

At 08:41 AM 12/12/2002 -0600, Bill Darte wrote:
   [ see previous msgs for text and Bill's proposed rewrite]

>This removes the connotation that 'an expert' will be involved rather than
>what is more likely a committee of review.
>It also states what is implicit.... that the coordination review will take
>place prior to the experimental allocation.


The first part I have no particular issue with. I was attempting to fold
in Ted Hardie's words without explicitly referencing the AC as the
reviewer (policy vs practice).

Your words arevpretty much equivalent in terms of policy as far as I see it.

I sawva 'reviewer" in the policy as equating to the ARIN AC in terms of
practice. i.e. a "reviewer" can just as easily be a committee or
an individual. Its a role description not an entity identification.
So either wording is fine.

The second part (prior to allocation) is implicit in what I wrote.
I was describing what is a 'recognized experimental activity'
which is a precursor to an allocation in respect of that activity.

Your wording makes this explicit and again I've no problem
with this, but they are pretty much equivalent in terms of policy.


>If a continuous liaison with IETF is needed to ensure continuing technical
>coordination is supported, then the last sentence could read.....
>This review will be conducted with ARIN and/or third-party expertise and
>will include continuous liaison with the IETF throughout the experiment.


I was careful to allow IETF liaison to be at the discretion of ARIN rather
than a mandatory. Its up to ARIN to figure out if the "may" becomes a "will".

I also think that 'continuous' is perhaps unwarranted in terms of ARIN's
role. If the experimenters want to undertake some collaborative activity
with the IETF that's their choice  - I do not think its a reasonable
policy imposition on the experimenter nor on ARIN to oversee.

>If this helps, I'm gratified. If not, well.... it was only a tweak anyway.

I see all but the last issue as neutral.

The last issue is a substantive point and probably requires further thought
within this forum.

regards,

   Geoff