[ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation
narten at us.ibm.com
Fri Oct 22 11:14:46 EDT 2004
> I suspect this is due to a discontinuity between "people who
> participate in the IETF" and "people who participate in ARIN policy
> activities". When some of us talk about the lack of operator
> participation in IETF activities, this is the kind of symptom we
> I respectfully suggest that most of the people who heard you speak on
> this in Vancouver had not heard of it before and didn't have an
> immediate response. They're responding now because it's had a chance
> to percolate into more prominence.
This makes sense too.
> > Personally, I have to wonder if having ARIN take a formal position is
> > the way to go here. First, it will take some time to reach such a
> > consensus, if indeed, there would be consensus. The unique-local-addr
> > document is undergoing IESG review now; any comments need to come in
> > soon, not a month or two from now.
> I would like to see RIR and IETF process mesh better than they do
> now. But with all due respect to both organizations, having ARIN or
> its members miss an IESG deadline does *not* mean that a proposal they
> find harmful can or will be forced on them.
To be clear, I'm very much interested in seeing the two orgs mesh
effectively. And on the IESG "deadline", the one document is/was (by
my read) in the final stages of being approved. But, the IESG also
doesn't generally have absolute hard deadlines and will take input
until a formal action is actually taken. So, it is certainly not too
late to provide input. Indeed, the issue has already been raised
within the IESG.
Also, given what just happened, I expect to be able to get the IESG to
delay, at least for couple more weeks, approval of the document in
order to provide time to work through the issue. So, it is definitely
not too late to raise issues, but it would be good to do so relatively
> > Second, this would be a first (I
> > can't recall ARIN ever having done so), so you'd be charting new
> > ground. Does the issue here warrant it?
> This is less of an issue than it might appear.
Fair enough. And in any case, it's for the ARIN community to
decide. (And contrary to the way my earlier note might have been read,
I'm not necessarily in opposition to this, so long as it can be done
relatively quickly, if its decided that this is the way to go.)
More information about the ARIN-PPML