[arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP addressTransfers
mike at nationwideinc.com
Sat Apr 30 20:43:29 EDT 2011
>If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent. As it stands, though, I >don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent well enough to try.
Here is why I call BS on the claim that these transfers comply with policy:
"Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies."
That is the text. The comma between resources and "as a single aggregate" can be read to cause the "as a single aggregate" clause to apply to either the verb phrase "be received" or the verb phrase "can demonstrate."
But how would anybody demonstrate a need for multiple netblocks anyway?
Isn't the need ALWAYS determined as a single aggregate?
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Sprunk
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP addressTransfers
On 16-Apr-11 02:19, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 15, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 15-Apr-11 19:00, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
The adopted policies (if they are using the "relatively new policy" as alluded to in the release) require the transfer of *a single aggregate*.
Not quite. NRPM 8.3 only requires the receiver "demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single aggregate", not that a single aggregate be transferred.
... I do not believe that Stephen's interpretation below matches the meaning or the intent of the policy as I understand it. ...
I don't think it does either, for the record. However, this points out how bad wording has left us in a situation where we're not sure what the policy text means--much less whether we agree with it.
I do agree that your interpretation would be a syntactically and grammatically valid construction, but, I believe it is contextually nonsensical and not the intended meaning of the words.
If anyone has a suggestion for making the actual intent more clear, I am open to suggestions and would support making an editorial correction for clarity.
If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent. As it stands, though, I don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent well enough to try.
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML