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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Joe Provo <ppml at rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 05:55:18PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
[clip ]


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/
>
>

OK and...


> 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.
>

It is. However, the text in Section 10 has to be agreed by all five RIR's
which means it goes off to global policy land. Just thinking out of the
box. Normally, I would agree, but changing section 10 for editorial changes
is a problem regardless.


> 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.
>

This is the first time that I can recall a policy was put forward
containing multiple rule changes. And the first we've seen a global policy
"editorial" change. The process is what it is. I made a few suggestions
which are enactable in ARIN land and probably solve most of the problem.
They don't really have the power to ignore the other items in the policy
for example. They could be edited out as part of the process, but not by
the ASO, the five RIR's. But more wheels. However, it does not solve the
"editorial" change itself. It is a change. Maybe someone smarter/shiftier
can figure out a work around to make an editorial change of a global
policy?

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.
>
>
I could be wrong. If it goes forward and I am, beer is on me. But you'll be
waiting at least two years in theory. Which is still a waste of time for
such a change IMHO. However, if it does go forward, count on me to start
the when is a change a change discussion.

YMMV

Warm regards,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210415/6981d173/attachment.htm>