[arin-ppml] question about NRPM 'efficient utilization' criteria

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Oct 15 16:43:20 EDT 2011

On Oct 15, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Not that I am in favor of the change;  I would strongly prefer the
> table option to still exist, and for the table to be restored, but
> 2010_14 was rather explicit
> "Strike sections, and"

Yes. was stricken because the policy it was part of was being
removed in favor of a more streamlined policy. The external dependencies
on this paragraph were overlooked in the process. is not the place
such a table format should be specified when multiple policies depend on
it and the correct result, IMHO, would be to restore the table specification as
an appendix to the NRPM and correct the references.

> The table option for accounting for additional utilization was
> specifically striken from the policy
> by that particular change.

And I don't think that the table option still applies to that particular section
of policy, but, it does (and should) still apply to the remaining sections that
now have dangling references to it (justifications for initial ISP allocations).

> And now we have a situation that needs to be corrected, where we have
> one policy referring to another policy that no longer exists.

Correct. However, I believe the reference is not to another policy, but, instead
to a specification that was originally part of a policy and should have been
moved when it turned into a multiple-policy referent, but wasn't.

In short, I believe the intent of 2010-14 was to strike the table (along with
significant other content from et. seq.) without intending to affect
other seemingly unrelated parts of 4.2 and the now dangling references were
simply overlooked.

If anyone in the community believes that the intent of 2010-14 was otherwise,
please speak up.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list