why I ask ... Re: [ppml] tying back to 2005-1

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon May 23 03:18:30 EDT 2005



--On Friday, May 20, 2005 15:58 -0400 Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz> 
wrote:

>
>> These were considered operational/implementation details that shouldn't
>> be spelled out in the policy itself...  again the assumption was that
>> whatever criteria an LIR should use would be applied.
>
> My reason for asking is to be better prepared to express opinions on the
> policy and to "vote" "the right way" the next time the policy is brought
> up.  (Leaving details to "assumptions" doesn't help draw wider interest
> in the policy development process.)
>
Permit me to rephrase for Lea...

These are operational/implementation details that are generally left up to
ARIN staff in other policies.  However, the policy explicitly stated that
the amount of space issued here would be directly tied to the amount of
space that would be issued by an applicable LIR if the end site were
going through the LIR process instead of ARIN.  That was not an
assumption... It was spelled out in the policy.  There are already
existing guidelines for what LIRs can issue under what circumstances, but,
by the nature of IPv6, they are in rapid flux, so, it seemed to make
sense to tie this policy to those policies by reference, thus preventing
any sort of dichotomy of riches between the LIR and ARIN processes.

> I'm not asking that the questions and their answers be put into the
> policy text.

Understood...  I hope I have sufficiently answered you question.  If not,
please let me know.

Thanks,

Owen


-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050523/4f0a4ea7/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list