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

[Bill Darte]

Agreed on all points you make below....

I chose the word 'will' as opposed to 'may' liaise with IETF because it
would seem prudent to 'at least touch base'.  The term 'may' just seems too
weak and 'will' too strong and 'likely' too indecisive.  I'd prefer to
obligate a 'coordination' of a scope that of course could range from minimal
on up........ 

Just my personal opinion on this issue.

Bill Darte


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih at telstra.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:03 AM
> To: Bill Darte; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] 2002-02 Address space allocations for experimental
> pur poses
> 
> 
> 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
>