[ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question

[Geoff Huston]

I did not write the draft.  Really. I was vocal in the IDR Working 
Group to say that we should conduct a working group last call and get 
the document to the IESG for publication. This happened. I believe 
that the timelines to 2010 are tight and we do need to plan ahead. I 
did not forsee that the IESG process with respect to this draft would 
be interminable.

Geoff


At 02:35 PM 7/10/2006, heather skanks wrote:
>I feel the need to pre-emptively clarify and say, that it is not my 
>intent to say that this draft will or will not become and 
>RFC.   Rather that, Geoff being  involved with both the proposed 
>policy AND the RFC does not add anything to the speed or odds that 
>this will become an RFC, as I doubt that the policy being passed by 
>the RIR's will affect the RFC process.
>
>And for Geoff, I had looked at the history of the draft prior to the 
>ARIN meeting in the spring and just before I sent my previous 
>email.  I agree it seems to be a timing issue.. and it is a shame 
>that the IETF process takes so dreadfully long, and gets little 
>attention from the community.. but the question remains, will ARIN 
>have any 32 bit addresses to hand out in January?
>
>--Heather
>
>On 10/7/06, heather skanks 
><<mailto:heather.skanks at gmail.com>heather.skanks at gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, I know Geoff Houston is behind both the rfc draft and the 
>policy proposals, but I don't find it relevant, just because it's 
>the same person doesn't mean it will ever become an RFC.   Isn't the 
>RFC intended to outline what the new AS's are, how the they will be 
>used, make IANA the authority to delegate them to the registrars and 
>give something for the vendors to work with for implementation?  (At 
>the very least the latter!!)  Just because the system is broke, does 
>that mean that everyone (including the registrars) should just go 
>off and do what they want?   That seems like the path to anarchy, 
>especially considering that this is something in which should 
>require global acceptance and implementation.
>
>And let me play devil's advocate and ask, is the system really 
>broken?  or does it just take too long?  Was the system broke last 
>fall when the draft was created?  If the author knew it to be broke, 
>why submit a proposal to individual registrars that would change 
>policy in about 6 months, for something you knew wouldn't get 
>through the rfc process by the time it was implemented, and more 
>importantly wouldn't be supported by any vendors?    If the plan is 
>to circumvent the rfc process, to motivate vendors, by going 
>directly to individual registrars because the process is "broken", 
>then what other process can be or is in place to make sure that all 
>registrars agree to hand out whatever crazy new number resource 
>thing someone dreams up?  What happens when one registrar agrees to 
>hand out something, and another registrar says no.. and there is no 
>parent organization (IANA) doling out ranges, because no one ever 
>informed them?  What happens on January 1, 2007 when someone asks 
>ARIN to give them a new 32 bit AS.. will ARIN have any to give out?
>
>I don't disagree that the net has to work in the meantime.. it just 
>seems if we go down this path, there is potential for it not to work 
>in the future!   I see ARIN AC referring author's to a better path, 
>as an attempt to help keep things in sync.
>
>--Heather
>
>
>
>
>On 10/6/06, Randy Bush <<mailto:randy at psg.com> randy at psg.com> wrote:
> > Last spring we looked at 2005-9 (4 Byte AS Numbers)   The policy gives
> > clear dates over the next 3 years and starting in January of 2007, for
> > when ARIN should begin handing out 32 bit AS's and cease to make a
> > distinction between 32 bit and 16 bit AS's.  However there is no RFC and
> > only a Internet draft created last fall, that discusses the creation of
> > 4byte AS's.  It seemed to me that having the policy go through the local
> > registrar's process, was a bit premature considering that the draft has
> > not gone through the RFC process in IETF and that no hardware supports
> > it.   This is a case, where I would have liked to see the AC refer the
> > author to the IETF process to flesh things out a bit more, and if
> > necessary with a nod that "we support this idea" ..  As it is now, ARIN
> > can start handing out 32 bit AS's in a little more than 3 months and the
> > draft is still a "proposed standard" "waiting for write up"
>
>the internet stopped waiting for the ivtf a while ago.  they are good at
>inventing and embellishing the complex and delaying the obvious.  in the
>meantime, the net kinda has to work.  it might be wise if the
>operational and administrative infrastructures kept in synch.
>
>[ btw, the author of the 4-byte asn policy proposal is the same poor sob
>who is working his draft through the ivtf sausage machine ]
>
>randy
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>PPML mailing list
>PPML at arin.net
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml