[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised

Mike Burns mike at nationwideinc.com
Thu Jul 11 10:39:28 EDT 2013


I see conservation not as a principle, I mean really the guiding principle should have been distribution of addresses, not conservation of them.
The goal was to grow the Internet through the dissemination of addresses.
Conservation was not the principle, it was the means to prevent the emptying of the free pool by bad actors.
These recent incarnations of this proposal continue to try to shoehorn conservation as a principle, even to the point of including conservation inside registration.
I don’t think it is either a principal or a goal, for that matter, just a protective mechanism for free pool addresses.
With the exhaustion of the free pool, conservation has no place in the NRPM. 
Until that time, we don’t need to clutter the NRPM with some hoary language from another era.

I am still against the proposal.

Regards,
Mike Burns




From: Bill Darte 
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 6:49 AM
To: William Herrin 
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised

No offense taken....and I assure you that it was not a smart ass comment, but a somewhat cynical observation of history.  But I do not see how you continue to suggest that the principles of rfc 2050 are not just that.  Conservation is a principle which has as its goal longevity of address availability.  Routability is a principle which help preserve proper functioning of the Internet mesh, a goal.  And Registration as a principle has as its goal the unique usage of numbers.  I believe that they are principles upon which our goals have been pinned and have been effective in my opinion.

bd




On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:45 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

  You're right John. Bill, I apologize for calling you a smart ass.

  The draft describes desirable states, not a belief system. Bill
  defined the former as goals and the latter as principles. Bill then
  cleverly and deliberately mischaracterized my comment that, if that's
  so, the draft should be relabelled with the correct word: goals.

  Clearly I was wrong to view Bill's 'ditching principles' response as a
  smart-ass remark. And even if it was, it was unforgivably rude for me
  to have said so.

  Regards,
  Bill Herrin


  On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Sweeting, John
  <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
  > Bill Herrin, you are totally out of line here. Please clean it up, there
  > is no excuse for your rudeness below. Period.
  >
  > On 7/10/13 8:47 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
  >>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:
  >>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
  >>>> Then perhaps we should ditch the word "principles" and stick with
  >>>> "goals" like RFC 2050 did.
  >>
  >>> I think in this world, the ditching of principles has always proven to
  >>>be a
  >>> poor choice.



  --
  William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
  3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
  Falls Church, VA 22042-3004




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130711/e202c93a/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list