[arin-ppml] would you support a proposal to tighten usage documentation requirements?

[Owen DeLong]

I would rather expand upon this in the ACSP and put it into the
operational documentation that stuff it into the NRPM.

Just my $0.02.

Owen

On Sep 17, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:

> I'd like to get some feedback on the following.  Just tell me if you
> think it's a good idea or not.  The specifics would have to be
> hammered out, obviously.  This is a "thumbs up/down" poll.
>
> Problem: right now the NRPM doesn't document explicitly what
> information to provide to document usage information.  Many non-ARIN
> people read it and get the impression that saying "I have 50 hosts" is
> enough to justify their usage.  Section 4.2.3.7.5 says "No. of
> Internal Machines".
>
> Talking with ARIN staff, they agree that explicit examples might be a
> good thing to have in the book.  They do *not* feel that limiting the
> input to a specific format would go over well, but it would certainly
> make their job easier.
>
> I therefore propose to write up a policy proposal with the following
> goals.  Tell me whether or not you'd support it.  I hate pissing
> upwind, so I'm only going to spend time doing this if enough of you
> guys and gals think this is a good idea.
>
> 1. Replace section 4.2.3.7.5 with some explicit examples of acceptable
> input.
>
> 2. Change the NRPM wording to say that any documentation provided that
> doesn't match the supplied guidelines will be evaluated on a case-by-
> case basis.
>
> NOTE: This would not change ARIN acceptance guidelines.  This would
> simply better document the existing evaluation process.
>
>    -or-
>
> A. Codify the acceptable format(s) in a way which is easy for us to
> machine generate.  (starting with the formats we use today so no
> change is necessary)
>
> B. Change the NRPM to require submission in one of the documented
> formats.
>
> NOTE: This *would* change ARIN acceptance guidelines by limiting the
> acceptable submission format.  It would not otherwise change the
> acceptance guidelines.
>
> Frankly, I'm in favor of the latter (alphabetic one) though that will
> come as no surprise to anyone who knows me.  But I'd happily write up
> and support the former (numeric) proposal because it would vastly
> improve the current situation.
>
> And before you reply, repeat after me "Neither of these proposals
> would actually change whether or not a given usage would be acceptable
> for a given allocation size."
>
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> senior geek
>
> Silicon Valley Colocation
> Support Phone: 408-400-0550
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080917/75963acf/attachment.p7s>