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

[James Hess]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 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.

However, that doesn't mean it's unnecessary.  Also:  I wonder what
should happen  if an organization should receive some resources  via
section 8.3  transfer and  then later that year request some resources
not by transfer?

"An organization receiving a transfer under section 8.3 may continue
to request up to a 12 month supply of IP addresses."

Taken on its own, someone could interpret this to mean  their receipt
of addresses in the past now entitles them to request a 12 month
supply of addresses to be allocated by ARIN,  instead of the reduced
3 month amount.


Also, if  8.3  were later revised,  so it became more complicated, or
a later revision to 8.3 says  "18 month supply"  instead of   "12
month supply" for transfers.
Now a change to this policy would be required as well

So   I do see a case  for revising the exact language for 4.2.4.4.
Such as:

"This reduction applies only to resources received directly from ARIN.
The size of a transfer that an organization  may justify and receive
receive under section 8.3 is not  restricted by this section."


--
-J