[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

[Owen DeLong]

While I wouldn’t consider it an editorial change, I would consider it a minor change, which, if it had good community discussion and support at the meeting, would, IMHO, be within the scope of pre-last-call changes that could be made between the PPM and last call.

The AC has, as has been mentioned before, significant discretion in determining what is a “minor change”.

This is strictly my own opinion and may or may not be shared by other AC members, staff, or anyone else.

Owen

> On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca> wrote:
> 
> I support the policy as written. <>
>  
> If the stick isn’t big enough it appears a simple policy change could be used, not just for this section but all the other areas “should” is used.
>  
> I would like to point out that “should” is currently used 30 times in the NRPM.
>  
> In reading John’s explanation, I can’t see “should” and “shall” being considered an editorial change. To extend the policy cycle to another meeting would be far worse.
>  
> Out of curiosity, how often has ARIN had to deal with SWIP issues like this, where the other party ignored you?
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Kevin Blumberg
>  
>  
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM
> To: Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
>  
> On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com <mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:
>  
> I oppose as written.
>  
> There should not be a different standard of requirement for:
> - re-allocation
> - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses
> - subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced
>  
> which is "shall"
>  
> and Registration Requested by Recipient
>  
> which is "should"
>  
> I would support if they are both "shall".
>  
> Can ARIN staff discuss what actions it will take if an ISP's
> down stream customer contacts them and explains that their
> ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them?
>  
> Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell
> them they "should" SWIP it?
>  
> Jason - 
>  
>    If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that has IPv6 space from ARIN 
>    but routinely fails to publish registration information (for /47 or larger reassignments) 
>    would be in violation, and ARIN would have clear policy language that would enable 
>    us to discuss with the ISP the need to publish this information in a timely manner.   
> 
>    Service providers who blatantly ignore such a provision on an ongoing basis will be 
>    in the enviable position of hearing me chat with them about their obligations to follow 
>    ARIN number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential revocation 
>    of the IPv6 number resources.)
>  
>    If the langauge for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient” 
>    reads “… the ISP should register that assignment”, then ARIN would send on any
>    received customer complaint to the ISP, and remind the ISP that they should
>    follow number resource policy in this regard but not otherwise taking any action.  
>  
>    If the language for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient”  
>    reads “… the ISP shall register that assignment”, then failure to do so would be
>    a far more serious matter that, if left unaddressed on a chronic manner, could have 
>    me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure to comply with 
>    number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential revocation of 
>    the IPv6 number resources.)
>  
>    I would note that the community should be very clear about its intentions for ISPs
>    with regard to customer requested reassignment publication, given there is large 
>    difference in obligations that result from policy language choice.   ARIN staff remains, 
>    as always, looking forward to implementing whatever policy emerges from the 
>    consensus-based policy development process. 
>  
> Thanks!
> /John
>  
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170928/0fbeb396/attachment.htm>