[arin-ppml] 2600::/12 LOA

[Aaron Dudek]

LOA has multiple meanings.
See. http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/LOA
However the author has defined it as Letter Of Authority (as per
ARIN-prop-202).

Aaron Dudek


On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
wrote:

>  Whether it's no-op or op, please note that an LOA is actually a "Letter
> of Agency".  Maybe some networks now call it a Letter of Authority, but
> it's properly Agency.
>
>
>
> *David R Huberman*
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
>
>
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net');>[mailto:
> arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Martin Hannigan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2014 7:23 PM
> *To:* Heather Schiller
> *Cc:* John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','arin-ppml at arin.net');>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2600::/12 LOA
>
>
>
>
>
> It's a no op then. There's no need to mention LOA's at all.
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, Heather Schiller <heather.skanks at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> The suggested text restricting LOA is:  "ARIN will not issue a Letter of
> Authority (LOA) to route a research prefix unless the allocation is
> properly registered in whois."
>
>
>
> The text does not specifically restrict ARIN from issuing an LOA
> altogether, it requires that the resource be registered in whois.  I think
> the text allows them to issue LOA for research where necessary and
> legitimate.  It should not impede them from issuing LOA in any other
> circumstance (though, outside of research, I don't imagine they get many
> requests for LOA)   Can you foresee a circumstance where it would be
> appropriate for ARIN to issue an LOA for something *not* registered in
> whois?   Do you think the current text impedes them from issuing necessary
> and legitimate LOA's?
>
>
>
> --Heather
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>  On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:52 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 31, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> NRPM 11 was designed for parties requesting allocations from ARIN for
> >>>> research purposes; not ARIN checking the quality/integrity of new
> block
> >>>> received from IANA.  Given the recent occurance, I believe it is
> prudent
> >>>> for ARIN to utilize NRPM 11 going forward for purposes of this quality
> >>>> checking, as it makes visible the organization doing the
> testing/making
> >>>> use of the space, including duration of the activity and research
> nature,
> >>>> as well as reaffirming the expected uniqueness requirement.
> >>>
> >>> If I understand this correctly, Matthew suggested that an update to
> >>> Section 11 would be more useful? If that's the case I agree. It would
> >>> require a few, simple, modifications.
> >>
> >> I think his suggestion to make use of NRPM 11 for this purpose is quite
> >> excellent.   It was not process that we used in the past, but shall be
> >> done that way going forward.   To the extent that the community wishes
> >> to improve NRPM 11 policy text for this purpose of address space
> testing,
> >> that is also welcome.
> >>
> >>> Why would ARIN ever need to issue an LOA if whatever is distributed is
> >>> in the registry? All the LOA responsibilities if even needed at that
> >>> point would fall to the registrant.
> >>
> >> Agreed; that is the major benefit of taking an "NRPM 11" approach to
> address
> >> space testing - ARIN stays focused on being a registry and leaves the
> use of
> >> address space to registrants.  Since registrants are unique for a given
> address
> >> block, we also preempt multiple parties with potentially conflict plans
> on the
> >> use (or routing) of any given portion of address space.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes, I agree. This is the preferable route.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > -M<
>
>   To add to this, it appears that we can condense most of the hand
> waving down to a modification in Section 11.4 that adds to the end of
> the paragraph "All resource assignments will be registered in the ARIN
> WHOIS database and in a manner not conflicting with any other
> registrations". Or any other language that would accomplish the same
> thing.
>
> We ought not to specifically restrict ARIN from writing an LOA. There
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140402/b004ba8f/attachment.htm>