[arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on PP-158
hannigan at gmail.com
Fri Nov 11 18:27:22 EST 2011
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:12 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anything to add to the discussion of this policy proposal? There were
>> 82 messages related to the actual issue that had sparked this review
>> and subsequent edit. The primary theme of supporters was that ARIN
>> staff incorrectly interpreted the policy. The opposition weighed in
>> exactly inverse. Support slightly outweighed opposition on the
>> interpretation issue. As far as I can tell, there was ZERO discussion
>> about the resulting proposal after it was posted. Corrections or
>> additional suggestions welcome.
> Hi Marty,
> I don't remember the original "misinterpretation" of the MDN policy.
> Can you provide a pointer to that discussion?
> The way it read (to me) before the change was that a compelling need
> was something like one of the enumerated cases. The way it reads after
> the change is that compelling need is not defined but a discrete
> network is something like one of the enumerated cases. Is that the
I believe so.
> When practical, renumbering sections is worth avoiding. We've built up
> a mass of historical commentary on ARIN policy that refers to it by
> section. When the section numbers are reused for something different,
> it can confuse later analysis of that commentary.
ARIN Advisory Council Member
More information about the ARIN-PPML