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

[John Santos]

Oops, in my list of cases where the existing wording does not make it 
optional (in my previous reply), I left out "the prefix is being 
separately routed".

On 9/29/2017 2:25 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> I will note the standard will not universally be "should", if the 
> reason the endusers wants the prefix registered is they were given 
> permission to route it, or its shorter than /47, then the standard 
> will be "shall", because of the clauses in 6.5.5.1.
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com 
> <mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:
>
>     David, Kevin, Alison
>
>     I am actually comfortable with an implementation that is short of
>     revocation,
>     but I am still not comfortable with "should".
>
>     Should makes it optional.  Officially not being out of compliance with
>     ARIN policy makes it optional.
>
>     I suggest that an ISP refusing to register a downstream customer
>     is out of compliance with ARIN policy, and not just choosing to
>     ignore
>     an optional recommendation.
>
>
> Further, a "shall" standard would not allow the ISP or ARIN Staff any 
> discretion, with a "shall" standard the mere fact that the enduser 
> made the request means the ISP MUST make the registration, except for 
> the reasons explicitly provided in policy.  If the ISP has a valid 
> reason, not explicitly covered in policy, to not make the 
> registration, a "should" standard allows ARIN Staff to consider that 
> on equal footing with the reasons the enduser wants the registration.
>
>     If it is only "should" then an ISP can still hold the moral high
>     ground
>     while refusing to support SWIP on the grounds that they will not
>     implement tooling and commit resources when it is only optional.
>
>     It is a question of if you can hold someone accountable for not
>     complying or if they are free to ignore something that is optional.
>
>
> "Should" is not completely optional, it recognizes there could be 
> valid reasons for an exception. Where as, "shall" is required, unless 
> an exception is explicitly provided. "May" is completely optional.
> Therefore, with a "should" standard, if the situation escalated to the 
> point of ARIN making an official inquiry, the ISP will need to 
> articulate a valid reason why they have not made the requested 
> registration, that is at least as compelling as the reason for the 
> request by the enduser. Not doing so would be tantamount to being out 
> of compliance with ARIN policy.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 
> <tel:%28612%29%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:%28612%29%20812-9952>
> ===============================================
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170929/daa4504d/attachment.htm>