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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

As the author of the original proposal, I do want to see the main part of 
this proposal advance and be passed.  Since it has now been pointed out 
that the language is currently frozen until the meeting, I note for the 
record that I have no problem with the draft as currently written, and 
would like to see it advance and pass.  Discussion up to this point seems 
to be that the majority have no issue with the use of either word "should" 
or "shall".  Thus, like the majority, "should" is acceptable for passage, 
and therefore I move for adoption as is.

The current draft is in 4 parts.  Part one, to change the SWIP standard 
from /64 or more to a larger size, currently /47 or more or individually 
routed, is what I thought was wrong with the earlier standard, and what I 
was seeking change in policy in the original draft, and what I would like 
to pass.

Sections 2 and 3 are basically corrections, section 2 a mis-identified 
IPv4 section reference changed to the corresponding IPv6 section, and in 
section 3, removal of language that would make the new standard unclear 
since /64 or more would no longer be the standard.

Section 4 is the section regarding downstream requests for SWIP, and has 
the "should" and "shall" issue being discussed.  It was identified during 
discussion, and was not part of the original draft.

I would suggest that we allow the draft to pass as is, and come back with 
a new draft changing that section to "shall" ONLY if it is identified that 
there are a lot of issues with obtaining SWIP registration by upstreams 
that do not think "should" is a strong enough word for them to act.  Even 
then, consider that an upstream that refuses to act on "should" may also 
decide to not act on "shall" either.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.



On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, John Curran wrote:

> On 28 Sep 2017, at 11:59 PM, Alexander, Daniel <Daniel_Alexander at comcast.com<mailto:Daniel_Alexander at comcast.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I just wanted to mention some procedural points to consider in this discussion and thank you all for contributing to this debate. It does provide helpful guidance to the AC.
>
> The current text is frozen, and cannot be changed until it is discussed at the meeting in San Jose. However, it can be discussed whether people would prefer "shall" or "should". If the community wanted the AC to advance this proposal by changing "should" to "shall", without going to another meeting, it does have to be discussed in San Jose with clear consensus, since that is not an editorial change.
>
> Clear direction from the community helps the AC in their decision making process. If the discussion and feedback at the meeting is clearly split between changes to the text, it can make final decisions challenging.
>
> Thank you all for your help in this process.
>
> Dan -
>
>    Your reading of the ARIN policy development process in this regard is 100% correct.
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>