[ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation

Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Fri Oct 22 04:32:18 EDT 2004

> three words on "why" would be greatly appreciated.

I represent an ARIN member who was not able to
send anyone to this ARIN meeting due to being busy
on other important projects internally. So I was
rather surprised to see people suggesting that we
send the IETF such a strongly worded condemnation
of a draft proposal. It seemed to me that you were
going to say that my company and all other ARIN
members were opposed to the proposal which is 
simply not true.

I have no problems with something that says:
"The issue was discussed at the ARIN meeting in
Reston and the consenus was..." or "After a discussion
at the ARIN meeting in Reston a majority voted
to register opposition to this draft because...".
You get the idea. Let's forget all the puffery
and just lay it out straight because the IETF
folks will not be fooled by strongly worded missives.

I was glad to see some IETF members speak up
and remind folks that the IETF doesn't care what
ARIN supports or does not support. The IETF is
and ENGINEERING task force and it cares more
about what will work and what won't work and
why people think things will or won't work and
what information was missed or was not given 
sufficient weight by the writers of the draft.

A draft is a suggestion. One possible life cycle
for a draft is evolution, i.e. it can be changed.
So if you want to fully reject a draft you really
should do a thorough job of explaining why each of
the possible evolutionary paths are dead ends.

Not having been a part of the discussion, I have
no idea of the substance of any of the objections. 
I strongly suggest that any individuals who have 
an engineering view on this should post it to the
appropriate IETF mailing list at http://www.ietf.org
Anyone with experience and knowledge can comment
on drafts. You don't have to be a card-carrying
member of anything.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list