<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>
<blockquote cite="mid:DE7B6192-F08C-4918-9612-95B7B47B0D89@delong.com" type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">6.3. Registration<br>
<br>
When an organization holding an IPv6 address allocation makes IPv6
address assignments, it must register assignment information in a
database, accessible by RIRs as appropriate (information registered by
ARIN may be replaced by a distributed database for registering address
management information in future). Information is registered in units
of assigned /56 networks. When more than a /56 is assigned to an
organization, the assigning organization is responsible for ensuring
that the address space is registered in an ARIN database.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
This is a major departure from current whois policy and I do not think
that an overhaul of whois</div>
<div>should be packaged with a major change to IPv6 policy. Please
restore the current SWIP/rhwois</div>
<div>requirements for publishing the data.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm fine with registering IPv6 data in terms of /56s, but, what
about cases where customers are</div>
<div>issued /64s? There are 256 /64 customers in a single /56.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This isn't a departure, this is a copy and paste (with minor edits)
from existing policy (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six55">https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six55</a>)<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I stand corrected... I was assuming that existing IPv6 registration policy mirrored IPv4 whois/swip</div><div>policy. Interesting that the IPv6 policy does not require public visibility. That should definitely</div><div>be rectified. Guess it's time to write another proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>Sorry for the interruption.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:DE7B6192-F08C-4918-9612-95B7B47B0D89@delong.com" type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">IRs shall maintain systems and practices that
protect the security of personal and commercial information that is
used in request evaluation, but which is not required for public
registration.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
I don't think this needs to be in the NRPM. I think that it is already
addressed in other areas.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's in the current NRPM, but I'll be happy to remove it unless anyone
thinks it needs to stay. (Like much of NRPM section 6, the globally
coordinated policy restates a lot of policy from elsewhere, and some
operational practice stuff as well.)<br>
<br></div></blockquote>Yep.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:DE7B6192-F08C-4918-9612-95B7B47B0D89@delong.com" type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">6.3.1. Residential Customer Privacy (2003-3)<br>
<br>
To maintain the privacy of their residential customers, an organization
with downstream residential customers may substitute that
organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer -
XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read 'Private
Residence'. Each private downstream residential reassignment must have
accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS record
for that block.<br>
<br>
6.3.2. Reverse lookup<br>
<br>
When ARIN delegates IPv6 address space to an organization, it also
delegates the responsibility to manage the reverse lookup zone that
corresponds to the allocated IPv6 address space. Each organization
should properly manage its reverse lookup zone. When making an address
assignment, the organization must delegate to an assignee organization,
upon request, the responsibility to manage the reverse lookup zone that
corresponds to the assigned address.<br>
<font class="Apple-style-span"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144fae"><br>
</font></font></blockquote>
I think this needs word-smithing, but, I'm at a loss to come up with
something better at the moment.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, this too is existing NRPM text, so we don't have to fix it right
now.<br>
<br></div></blockquote>Perhaps not, but, it would be nice if we did while we're here. I think the general intent is right, just needs to</div><div>be a cleaner way to say it.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>