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

Thu Sep 28 14:33:06 EDT 2017

I continue to support the proposal as written. Changes can be made, if
necessary, later and "shall" can be incorporated at that time.

Brian Jones

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:57 PM Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca> wrote:

> 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> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/aa16d86c/attachment.htm>