[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run-Out - Last Call

[Owen DeLong]

In general I see removing the second sentence as a no-op.  I don't  
think it adds
nor do I think it removes clarity in either case.

Having said that, unnecessary text is just that, and, if removing it  
is a no-op, it
is unnecessary text.

Owen

On Dec 4, 2009, at 9:46 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> Stephen Woodrow wrote:
>> May I suggest a clarification of the language here:
>>> This reduction does not apply to resources received via section  
>>> 8.3. An
>>> organization receiving a transfer under section 8.3 may continue to
>>> request up to a 12 month supply of IP addresses.
>> To me, the first sentence is perfectly clear, while the second
>> sentence adds confusion due to the fact that a request may be for 3  
>> or
>> 12 months, depending on the state of the IANA free pool. Can the
>> second sentence be deleted or otherwise adjusted to reflect the  
>> intent
>> as clearly described in the rationale below?
>
> The two sentences in question were taken directly from the original  
> Draft Policy that was reviewed by staff and presented at ARIN XXIV.   
> So this part of the text hasn't changed since Dearborn.  But, it did  
> get moved around a little though.
>
> Personally, I think it is clear, but I wrote it.  So, I'm probably  
> not the best judge.  What do others think?
>
> Just to be clear on the intent, this relates to Transfers to  
> Specified Recipients per NRPM section 8.3. In current policy without  
> the addition of 2009-8, a recipient of a transfer can receive up to  
> a 12 month supply of IP addresses. The intended result with 2009-8  
> applied is for a recipient of a transfer to continue to receive up  
> to a 12 month supply a 12 month supply of IP addresses.  The  
> reduction to a 3 month supply is intended only for allocations from  
> the ARIN free pool, not transfers.
>
>
>>> Rationale:
>> ...
>>> This policy is intended to be independent of other policies or  
>>> proposals
>>> to reserve address space for IPv6 transition or other purposes. It  
>>> is
>>> not intended to limit Transfers to Specified Recipients per  
>>> section 8.3
>>> of the NRPM.
>> Otherwise, I support this draft.
>> --Steve
>
> Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it.
>
> So, now I need additional feedback from others on the clarity of  
> this part of the text.
>
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota	
> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.