[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:39 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> The key thing is that each transfer in a sequence should comply with
>> the rules of every registry in the sequence, not just the two
>> registries involved in that particular step.
>
> I have read the above sentence several times, and do hope that you
> do not intend its plain meaning.   I would hope instead you mean -
> “The key thing is that each transfer in a sequence should be approved by
> registries whose transfer policy meets the transfer common requirements.”

Hi John,

Without a globally coordinated policy there are no transfer common
requirements, just the combination of the requirements applied by each
registry independently. I'm asking that the combined requirements of
all registries in the sequence (combined, not common) be met at each
step of the transfer sequence. In particular, the transfer should fail
if the combined policies are self-contradictory.

An example: a transfer which involves both ARIN and CNNIC somewhere in
the sequence should fail because ARIN requires transfer reciprocity
while CNNIC refuses out-transfers altogether. Introducing additional
transfer steps in the middle of the sequence should not make such a
transfer possible.


>> The cooldown timer resolves this by simply saying: there shall be no
>> sequence of transfers leading outregion. You have to hold and use the
>> addresses long enough that the next transfer is independent.
>
> So is safe to presume that you wish a long hold timer for the common
> transfer requirements?

Call it a long hold timer before the sequence is considered complete
and a new transfer can start without considering the whole chain of
registry policies.



> To allow each registry its own approach to the problem than requires
> that each registry review the approach used by the other and decide
> if they will accept it, and then communicate that to the others.  This is
> an (n)! situation

That sounds about right. With more than 3 or 4 registries in the
sequence a transfer would be hopelessly complex, hence blocked.


> and does not appear practice (as opposed to simply
> establishing a clear reference approach which can be readily and
> independently confirmed.   Thoughts?

Clear reference approach = globally coordinated policy, yes?

Even if successful, that'd leave the problems with section 8.4 in
limbo for an awfully long time, would it not?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>