[arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

[Brian Jones]

Thank you for your feedback Dale. We are still gathering data at this point and I appreciate the mention of RFCs as I had not really considered that angle.


Brian Jones
ARIN Advisory Council (NRPM Working Group)



> On Dec 5, 2023, at 5:10 PM, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder at es.net> wrote:
> 
> Thus spake Brian Jones (bjones at vt.edu) on Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:28:18PM -0500:
>> 
>> Section 6.5.1.a  “Terminology” explains that ISP and LIR terms are used interchangeably throughout the entire document. The NRPM working group in discussions with ARIN staff has concluded that the term LIR could be replaced everywhere in the NRPM with the term ISP. By my counts the term LIR appears 37 times in the NRPM currently, while ISP is referenced 62 times. The LIR term is utilized less nowadays than in times past and ISP is a more widely used and well understood term. The LIR term occurs more frequently in other RIRs and it is likely that if section 6 were written solely for ARIN the ISP term would have been used. So the question to the community is, would replacing the term LIR with ISP make the NRPM more consistent and readable? The NRPM working group would like to hear your feedback.
> 
> I think that would be a step in the wrong direction.  To me, the term
> ISP seems to carry a strong commercial connotation that excludes the
> existence of LIR entities that include governments, academic
> institutions, non-profits, large scale enterprises, or even cloud or
> content providers.
> 
> Of course, I have some bias coming from a network that is very much not
> an isp... ;-)
> 
> The term LIR is used at other RIR's as you mention, as well as in a
> number of RFC's since the mid 90's.  Why should we diverge?
> 
> I think you could delete 6.5.1.a and clarify in section 2 that LIR and
> ISP may be used interchangably in the document, but personally I would
> prefer use of the term ISP be cleaned up, not LIR.
> 
>> Part b
>> Section 6.5.1.b defines the IPv6 nibble boundaries . The working group feels like this definition would be a better fit if moved to section 2 of the NRPM which is the Definitions section. Your thoughts about moving the IPv6 nibble boundaries definition from section 6.5.1.b to section 2 would be appreciated.
> 
> Sounds perfectly reasonable.
> 
> Dale

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20231212/cce95ef1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20231212/cce95ef1/attachment.sig>