[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-154 Shared Space for IPv4 Address Extension (w/IETF considerations)

[Jimmy Hess]

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:26 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> ARIN shall advise the IETF of the /10 reserved and shall request that
>> the IETF determine issues associated with using the /10 as described,
>> set appropriate constraints on the use of the block and publish an RFC
>> documenting the block's recommended use. ARIN shall make manpower and
>> other resources available to the IETF as necessary to facilitate such
>> activity.

> Would anyone object if I replaced this paragraph with:
> "The IETF is asked to create an RFC governing the use of the allocated
> /10 for the purpose described. ARIN shall make resources, such as
> manpower, available to the IETF as necessary to facilitate such
> activity."

> I think the original version reads a little too much like explaining
> to the IETF, step by step, how to do their job. John Curran has called

The paragraph provides ARIN a list of things to request of the IETF.
With the policy proposal the IETF might create an RFC and study issues;
or the IETF might not do any of those things, or might do any combination of
those things regardless of any request under the policy if accepted.

It does not say anything like  "The IETF shall perform these steps in order;"
it will be up to the IETF which  (if any)  actions to take,
and what order to take those actions in, regardless of what ARIN is asked
to request.

However, ARIN should acknowledge there might be technical issues with
the /10,  and the community would benefit as a result of guidance of the IETF
on that manner, so it is beneficial ARIN request that.


I see no problem with it being policy initially that ARIN request a
list of things.
But it should be removed from policy,  once the IETF has decided one way
or another,  to provide an RFC reserving the /10,  or definitively decided
not to reserve additional space.

So  "some list of things that were to be requested at one time"
should not become permanent artifacts of the NRPM.

They should either expire/or be removed automatically, as the policy seems to
provide for.     Although the case where the IETF chooses to not publish an RFC
does not appear to be anticipated by the proposal.

--
-JH