[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion - Last Call (text revised)

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 10/29/10 1:00 PM, "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:47, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
>> In a message written on Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:40:10PM -0400, ARIN wrote:
>>> The AC made the following revisions to the text:
>>>   - The second sentence in section 2 was changed into two sentences.
>>> "Eligible address space includes addresses that are not designated as
>>> "special use" by an IETF RFC. Address space may only be returned by the
>>> issuing RIR."
>> 
>> I am unsure if I am being pedantic here, or if there is an intent
>> to exclude legacy space.
> 
> That was certainly not the originators intent. Although I agree that
> the AC did a less than optimum job of word-smithing; I must admit the
> original text was less than perfectly clear as well.
> 
> In any case, I think the next sentence saves us from any potential
> problem: "Legacy address holders may return address space directly to
> the IANA if they so choose."
> 
>> Legacy space was not issued by any of the current RIR's.  ARIN may
>> be able to claim it is the decendant of the issuer (warning, can
>> of worms), but for instance other RIR's had legacy space transferred
>> to them years ago.
>> 
>> It is entirely possible to read that sentence as excluding legacy
>> space as a result, which I hope was not the intention.
>> s/issuing/responsible/ would clear up any confusion, although I'm
>> uncleaer why the sentence is needed at all.  Do we really need to
>> state that IANA shouldn't accept back an APNIC block if RIPE is the
>> one trying to return it?
> 
> I think it makes sense to cover our bases.
> 


At worst, the authors via the ASO AC can suggest that the other RIR's
rewrite this to something clearer if they consider it to be able to be done
while keeping the context and intent of the proposal.


Best,

-M<