[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:41 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-2: Directory 
> Services Overhaul
> 
> 
> In a message written on Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:11:59PM 
> -0400, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> > I don't see anything about choice.  Nothing here overrides the SWIP 
> > requirements.  The Public database is the current WhoIs; the 
> > Confidential database is billing information.
> 
> I want to be clear about this, because this is an area of 
> controversey in the policy as proposed.
> 
> SWIP requires do not change.  You must submit SWIPs under the 
> new policy for the same items that you submit SWIPs now.  
> However, a SWIP can be marked "publish" or "don't publish".  
> That is, you have a choice to not have the SWIP show up in 
> whois/bulkwhois/the web query.  In that case verification 
> does not apply to the record, and the parent record would be 
> the only thing that appears for a general lookup.

OK, I stand corrected on the intent.  And somehow I completely 
missed all proposed text after proposed 3.6, which explains why
my reply to Marla made no sense.

Stet:

	4.2.3.7.2. /29s and larger nets - ISPs must provide reassignment 
	information on the entire previously allocated block(s) via SWIP 
	or RWHOIS server for /29 or larger blocks. For blocks smaller than 
	/29 and for internal space, ISPs should provide utilization data 
	using the format described in section 4.2.3.7.5.


This:
	4.2.3.7.4. Visible via WHOIS - This information must be visible 
	via WHOIS prior to submitting a request for a new allocation. For 
	further information on reassigning IP address space, please see 
	RFC 2050.

gets replaced with:
	All reassignment information for current blocks shall be submitted 
	to ARIN prior to submitting a request for a new allocation. 


It sounds like an ISP may choose to publish, and may then choose to 
publish locally (maintaining public availability 24x7), and may also 
choose to gouge out their eyes with hot pokers.

For clarification, is section 3.3.3 Requirements for Internet 
Accessible Services a set of requirements of ARIN, or of organizations?
Passive voice makes it a little unclear.  


> Suspended is simply a flag.  "You passed this point."  

A Boolean value with no defined use.  ACK.

> Similarly "reclaim" to me is exactly what it says it is.  
> It's a return to the pre-allocation state.  I would assume 
> that includes removing whois, in-addr.arpa mappings, and 
> putting it back in the available pool to be reallocated in the future.
> 
> But again, the individual steps are procedural, not policy.  
> The ARIN staff would have to publish the procedure before any 
> of these steps could be done, so the exact enumeration would 
> be available prior to any enforcement.

In general, I agree with you.  In the case of reclamation, I
think it should be spelled out, here in the policy, precisely
what happens to you.

> 
> > [list of ways to provide bulk WHOIS]
> 
> You know, it wasn't my intention to have a closed list.  I 
> realize now that is not clear, as you are the first person to 
> bring that to my attention.  Rather, it was to have a list of 
> methods that would be required to be supported, but to allow 
> staff to work out other arrangements as appropriate.  Somehow 
> I forgot to add that before the proposal went in.  It's 
> probably too late to add that for this go round, but the 
> policy as written is no worse in that respect than the one we 
> have today.

I think the AC could add that in review, since it is not a 
substantive change, or at least, is consistent with the spirit
of the proposed policy.

Thanks for setting me straight on where this policy was going.

Lee

> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

Is it just me, or is all of their best work going into TV
theme shows and children's music?
Oh, I guess that's off-topic for the list.