[ppml] comments on 2005-2

[Edward Lewis]

At 16:43 -0400 4/15/05, Bill Van Emburg wrote:
>Edward Lewis wrote:
>>  At 16:03 -0400 4/15/05, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>   >As I said to a previous poster, it's just a label.  A flag that a
>>   >particular step in the process has been passed.  I suppose we could
>>   >add a definition, but it would be "someone who has failed the first
>>   >round of contacting is classified as suspended".
>>  Then don't use the word "suspended," perhaps "labeled" (or 
>>"marked," or "noted as unresponsive").  Suspended has connotes 
>>restrictions are put in place.  ("Suspended license.")
>>

>I feel strongly that "suspended" *should* be the language, and should mean
>something.  There is no reason ARIN can't deny future resources to someone
>who's suspended; turn off their reverse DNS delegations; or even reclaim
>the space.

I'll put it this way...

Upon first contact by ARIN staff of a reportedly unresponsive 
contact, the contact is marked as "being 
researched/investigated/verified".  Because the contact might be a 
postal address, you have to allow for some latency in the testing - 
even email is not necessarily immediate.

Once a contact has failed to respond in an appropriate window of 
time, the contact is noted as non-responsive and some actions are 
taken.

If all contacts for a resource are marked as non-responsive, then the 
label of "suspended" comes into play.  Two kinds of suspension can 
exist - suspension from automatic updates to the database (to 
suppress the chance of hijacking the resource) and suspension 
"warnings" to the routing community.  You can divide the problem into 
suspending a POC object (no cert, no changes, no more space) and 
suspending a resource (it shouldn't be routed, no reverse DNS).

(Reclaiming space is more drastic than suspending it.  Neither space 
should be allowed to be used, but reclaimed space is no longer 
"reserved" for the original purpose.)

Note - having ARIN police the routing tables is not what I mean. 
What I mean by the latter is that the only meaningful suspension of a 
resource is to make it's use "illegal".  (Like a suspended drivers 
license.)

So - in the interim of testing the contact, I think you don't mark 
the contact as "suspended."  (Innocent until proven guilty and all 
that.)  Once the contact is a problem, appropriate penalties should 
apply.

Keep in mind that testing contacts have to deal with the reality of 
time.  And that for a network resource, there may be multiple 
contacts.

So - I think that suspended isn't the right word for initial reports 
of non-responsive, but suspended with teeth is the right word for 
resources with no responding contacts.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

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