[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-3: Lame Delegations

[Edward Lewis]

At 9:18 -0700 4/14/05, Azinger, Marla wrote:

>That said...if anyone should choose to suggest changes to the actual Policy
>and its "meaning" then I urge you to bring it up seperately at the open
>sessions so that your concerns get heard and evaluated.  AND so that we do
>not bog down our proposal to "modify" the "notification process" within the
>policy.

If there is interest in doing this, I'll pitch in.

On Sunday I plan to do some slides during the open policy discussion 
on "Community-Provided Technical Guidance to ARIN."  The impetus for 
the slides are  issues such as the lame delegation policy.

I have some first hand knowledge on the topic of lame delegation and 
the ARIN policy.  Having once been on staff, one of my duties 
involved researching, measure, and implementing tools in support of 
the policy.  Given the appropriateness of ARIN's confidentiality 
policy I won't go into details, give size estimates, nor cite 
specific "interesting" cases.  However, I can say that the policy as 
written left a lot open to interpretation.

By that I mean, when I wrote the tools, I made simplifying 
assumptions because there was little documentation behind the 
original policy and little guidance in the policy regarding the 
testing parameters.  Detecting lame delegations is not as 
straightforward as it sounds.  (My slides Sunday propose a WG, which 
might be what would have helped me in making more informed 
assumptions.)  The assumptions were mine - history has shown me that 
I do not always make wise decisions.

Note, not an attack on any judgement(s) made by staff, just speaking 
from experience of one-time implementer who would have appreciated 
better metrics by which to know when my code was "done."

That being said - the modification (policy 2005-3) solves a problem 
with the original policy (2002-1).  It is needed.  The reporting 
scheme indicated in 2002-1 is overly burdensome.  The modification is 
better because it allows the staff now to use it's judgement in how 
to report lame delegations.

My questions regarding the original policy are not critical, but I 
have a mild engineer's burn to iron them out.  I think it would be 
good for community members to think about how far we want the staff 
to go in hunting and eliminating lame delegations.  This is something 
needing a discussion in a working group-like setting, not a policy 
statement.  (Again, another plug for my slides on Sunday.)

If this is something only I am concerned with, I'll just let it go. 
My concerns are not deep-seated and there are plenty of other things 
to work on.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.