[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10

[Joe Provo]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 05:55:18PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Just waking up here with regards to the Section 10 change.
> 
> While the section 10 changes are subtle they are also problematic. I
> suggest abandoning the Section 10 change. It is not worth it.  Nor is it
> necessary. And it may even be undesirable.
> 
> Nowhere in the NRPM s the term ASN defined except in Section 10. When you

That is what is corrected in this policy: 

Section 2.X Autonomous System Number (ASN)

An Autonomous System Number (ASN) is a unique identifier which represents a
collection of network resources operated under a common routing policy
administration, known as an autonomous system.

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_1/

> string it together such as "Autonomous System Number (ASN)" you imply that
> you are creating a precise meaning. It is in Section 10. It has global
> implications. The precise meaning was agreed to by ALL FIVE RIR's. If we
> make this change, we make it imprecise. While there may be contractual
> language elsewhere that define this term e.g. PTI agreement, conflict
> causes confusion. And considering its a global policy change, do we want
> that? It would require a round of global policy ratification in each RIR.

I fail to see how the proposed definition in section 2 is anything but 
more precise than the existing Section 10 text, which doesn't *define*
anything, merely introduces the acronym with the text "Autonomous System
Numbers (ASNs)". In most all contracts and technical documentation, one
introduces an acronym once, at its earliers use, hence including the 
trivial editorial change from "Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)" to
"ASNs" after the definition (again, above) is established.

IMO, if we have set ourselves up with a system where such a trivial
change requires massive effort across all the RIRs we made a mistake.
Either the meat of [our] section 10 should be a separate document 
entity, incorporated by reference rather in the body, or we should 
assert that section 10 should never be touched regardless of how 
illogical it makes the rest of the document.

The AC shepherds have the pen, so they certainly can sever the trivial
change to section 10 if it is truly believed to trigger the End Times.

Cheers!

Joe

-- 
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling