[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-157 Section 8.3 Simplification

[Tom Vest]

On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Tom Vest <tvest at eyeconomics.com> wrote:
> 
> [ clip ]
>  
> 
> Marty you seem to be quite serious about this, but with all due respect the idea that embracing IPv4 transfers 
> under exigent circumstances establishes a new/universal precedent to which all number resources should or must necessarily conform is a textbook example of "reductio ad absurdam" thinking. Having the right to buy/sell certain things under certain circumstances does not entail or necessitate that everything else may be bought and sold at will -- not outside of the domain of fringe ideology anyway.
> 
> Tom,
>  
> I would respond to this point-by-point except that I don't really see a point. If you can explain how these 24 words end the world and perhaps offer a twenty-fifth word to avert this pending disaster, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> Best,

Hi Marty, 

Thanks for the response.
I concede that the two sentences above that you chose not to [clip] are basically editorializing on my part. If you're interested in responding to my substantive points, you'll find them in the portions of the previous message that you deleted, and (most recently) among the messages that I posted to ppml last week.

Here's a quick summary:

1. PDP procedural objection/"truth in advertising" request: 
In cases where a proposal's adoption would significantly alter the substance and impact of Number Resource Policy, characterizing that proposal as a minor editorial tweak (or "simplification") of NRPM wording is misleading at best. Please consider rewriting and renaming your proposal to more accurately and transparently convey its overall effect, which would be to materially change several elements of number resource policy, including (a) the extension the currently narrow (IPv4-only) scope of approved transfer policies to cover all protocol number resources, and the (b) preemption current/approved distribution policies for both ASNs and IPv6. 

2. Substantive objections:
Simplicity may be a stylistic virtue, but any benefit that might be achieved by simplifying NRPM language must be balanced against the  non-stylistic, practical consequences that the proposed simplification would have in the real world. I have explained at length, on this list and elsewhere, that I believe that subjecting ASNs to more liberalized transfer policies would have far-reaching and profoundly adverse operational consequences. I don't have time to recap the details right now, but you can find an excellent summary in the 2009 ISOC Brief entitled "IPv4 Affinity." Each of the problems that that paper identified with respect to IPv4 transfers would be vastly more problematic for ASN transfers.

http://www.isoc.org/internet/issues/docs/ipv6_200905.pdf

I have a confcall now, but would be happy to provide more details afterward if necessary.

Regards, 

TV