[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Fri Feb 18 20:05:23 EST 2011

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:38 PM, John Sweeting <john.sweeting at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:46 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> IMHO a policy that *allows* return of blocks to IANA upon
>> >> request by IANA would be ok.  I am not in favor of policy
>> >> that *requires* return of blocks whether IANA wants them or not.
>> >Hi Kevin,
>> >That matches my understanding of the already-board-approved draft
>> >policy 2009-3. However, when evaluating proposal 131, ARIN staff
>> >offered a radically different interpretation of 2009-3. Their
>> >interpretation is that an ARIN policy which prevents the return of
>> >legacy addresses to IANA (prop 131 version 3) conflicts with the
>> >mandatory returns to IANA in draft policy 2009-3.
>  I do not remember ever seeing that stated, would you please reference the
> email you read this in? It is the timing of PP131 that is wrong, not the

I don't understand. What's wrong with the timing?

[ snip ]

>> >Hence proposal 135 which, in my opinion, does not alter 2009-3 in any
>> >way. It merely clarifies the intended interpretation of 2009-3's
>> >language.
>  A proposal that changes nothing is a non op.

Not always, sometimes the obvious needs to be stated.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list