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

Thu Sep 28 13:56:51 EDT 2017

Chris,

I have had a difference of opinion in the past, with members of the community, with what constitutes an editorial change. I have always erred on the side of caution.

While I’m indifferent to the options, I am strongly in support of this policy moving forward.

If there is a chance that the change will be questioned during last call, and prevent the policy from moving forward, I’m opposed to any alteration.

I believe that staff have shown significant implementation differences between the two words.

Some assistance from the Advisory Council and/or Staff to the community as what would constitute an editorial change would probably be helpful.

Thanks,

Kevin Blumberg

From: Chris Woodfield [mailto:chris at semihuman.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 1:21 PM
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>; arin-ppml at arin.net
Cc: Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

I agree with Owen’s assessment. If there is sufficient community support for changing the phrase to “shall” at the PPM - I’d define “sufficient community support” as a show of hands on that specific word choice, in addition to the discussion here - I see no need to require another public consultation in order to go to last call incorporating that change in terms.

I’m personally in favor of “shall", although I still support as written. Perfect as enemy of good, etc etc.

Thanks,

-C

On Sep 28, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jschiller at google.com>>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/d0337fd7/attachment.htm>