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

[Alyssa Moore]

I support the policy as written.

I would not consider swapping *should* for *shall* to be an editorial
change. My preferred auxiliary verb for the purposes of the current policy
proposal is "should."

This is my own opinion and may or may not be shared by other AC members
(see: Owen Delong).

FWIW, if we encounter problems with the current language of the proposal,
it can (shall? should?) be amended in the future, or the community may
(shall? should? ought to?) choose to define the intent of auxiliary verbs
for the NRPM.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:05 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 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
> <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> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f97356e4/attachment.htm>