<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Jason, further comments inline.<br>
<br>
On 5/30/2013 10:18 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Andrew,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
(Putting aside the RFC-2050 3.1 - does this create a new ability
to revoke legacy IPs for the other thread)
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Your comments boil down to:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. <span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">it
comes down to "modernizing" the 2050 text/principles</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">2.
keeping principles in the principles section and not putting
specific policy in the principles section.</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">In
general I agree with both.</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">I tried to start
with 2050 text/principles, and only attempted to go beyond
that text where it helped,</font></div>
<div style=""> <font face="arial, sans-serif">e.g. such
as substituting "efficient use" for conservation (nobody
uses conservation) but still paying </font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">homage </font><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">to the conservation
section that this principle</span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> stems from.</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">It is possible that
some of the language from 2050 is to detailed or "policy
specific" and should be </font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">stripped away </font><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">and moved into other
more relevant sections of the NRPM. This may be a bit
tricky to </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">do
in separate</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> proposals
as you want both things to happen. </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">I propose we
ether initially adopt, then decide if certain details should
be moved elsewhere, or </font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">figure out which
specific details should be moved where,and include them in
this proposal (or both).</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""> <font face="arial, sans-serif">But just because
there already is a detailed section on say transfers,
doesn't mean it shouldn't also </font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">be included in the
principles section that</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">"</font><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">The
transfer of Internet number resources from one party to
another must be approved by the regional </span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
registries. The party trying to obtain the resources must
meet the same criteria as if they were </span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
requesting resources directly from the IR."</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think having a transfers section in the principles, document is
appropriate, I would point out that today the transfer policies are
different from the direct RIR policies, e.g. 24months vs. 3 months.
So today we don't follow the above principle.<br>
<br>
I'd propose the following updated text:<br>
<br>
<big><big><tt><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">The transfer of
Internet number resources from one organization to another
must be approved by a RIR. Transfer policies are created by
Internet stakeholders through the community driven policy
development process.</span></tt><tt><span style="font-size:
13.3333px;"></span></tt></big></big><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">One
could image that the ARIN community decides that there
should be no transfers, and all </span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">redistribution</font><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"> of
addresses should be through return to IANA and split equally
among the RIRs.</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">In this case the
ARIN community could abolish the text on transfers.
Would we then loose the</font></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">principle
that if a transfer was to happen (say a new transfer policy
in the future) it should be</span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">governed
by the same principles of getting address space directly
from the RIRs? </span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">Specific text
changes:</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">1. number resources</font></div>
<div> <font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">I agree we should try to use
number resources as much as possible where it makes sense. </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">I'm not sure who owns the
text at this point, I think maybe the AC. They should look
very </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">carefully at each use of IP
address and see if number resource can be substituted
without</font></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">creating some
strage IP address specific restriction on ASNs.</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">2. IPv4/IPv6
protocol differences</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">I am not opposed to
adding "</font><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Conservation
goals may vary due to the technical differences </span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">between
IP number resources pools."</span><font face="arial,
sans-serif"> to section 0.4 just after to the sentence "</font><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Care
must be </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">taken </span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">to
ensure balance with these conflicting goals given the
resource availability, relative </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">size
of the </span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">resource,
and number resource specific technical dynamics, for each
type of number resource."</span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">I
felt like that was covered under "</span><span
style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">relative </span><span
style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">size
of the </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">resource,
and number resource specific </span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">technical
dynamics", and the following examples of how the balance
shifts directly illustrates that.</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">But if it is not
clear enough, the additional text you recommend will be
helpful.</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="">3. sustainability</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">I'm happy to accept some text on this... but I'm
not exactly sure what it is..</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
While using "sustainability" instead of "conservation" would be a
textual change, it might be a positive change. To me what the RIRs
do with number resources today are more closely aligned with the
definition of sustainability vs conservation. <br>
<br>
Sustainability to me means managing a resource for all
stakeholders. Conservation sometimes means preserving the status
quo or excluding certain uses to protect the resource.<br>
<br>
The word "conservation" appears 3 times in the current posted
draft. Just substituting the word "sustainability" seems to make
sense to me. This might however be too much a of a jump for others.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style=""> <br>
</div>
<div style="">4. documentation to promote increased utilization</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">So I think there are a number of reasons accurate
documentation is important, </div>
<div style="">and I think one of them is so that the RIR can
measure utilization and judge </div>
<div style="">current usage prior to deciding to give additional
space. This process causes</div>
<div style="">more efficient utilization over all.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">I think this aspect is important, and should be
included. It is possible the some </div>
<div style="">word smithing may be in order. </div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">"Resource
holders will be required to provide an accounting of
resources currently held </span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">in
order to provide the necessary transparency and
accountability. This information provides</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">IRs the ability to
measure efficient utilization of current space prior to
allocating or assigning</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">additional space."</font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
I the above proposed text is pretty good. <br>
</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">5. transfers</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">I agree, the details of transfer policy should be
in the "main" portion of the NRPM, and already is, </div>
<div style="">and that is where the details of transfers should
be documented.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">But I also think RFC-2050 gives us some high level
guiding principles wrt transfers:<br>
A. RIRs must approve<br>
B. must be consistent with the criteria as if they were
requesting an IP address directly</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">I think these principles should be included.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">I am not opposed to the text "RIRs shall determine
IP number resources transfer policies through </div>
<div style="">the<span
style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">ir
community driven policy development process." In fact all
policies (except emergency ones) </span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">are
determined by the community through the PDP...b</span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">ut
I'm not sure that changes anything.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
See above proposed text and comments.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style=""><span
style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="">6. audit</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">I think some guiding principle text is important
here. This text was lifter from RFC-2050. </div>
<div style="">Again, not intending to create
new capabilities here, but think this principle (in some form
is important)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">If the community thinks it is superseded by text
in the NRPM and RSA, I am happy to use that text as </div>
<div style="">a basis for pulling out some high-level
principles.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">Is there RSA or NRPM text that is high level
enough to use here? How would you propose to create</div>
<div style="">high level principles from the RSA and NRPM text?</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">___Jason</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:25 PM,
Andrew Dul <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:andrew.dul@quark.net" target="_blank">andrew.dul@quark.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Hi Jason,
<div><br>
<br>
On 5/28/2013 9:04 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Andrew thanks for your feed back.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I want to point out that much of this
language comes from either RFC-2050 or the
current PDP or NRPM. I tired to change the
language as little as possible, except where we
have commonly agreed on new language such as
"efficient utilization" instead of conservation.
I thought that might be the
most uncontroversial starting point. I am not
opposed to changing it, especially if it makes
the text less controversial.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
I didn't have any of those docs in front of me when
reviewing the proposal, so I didn't specifically note
they were "existing policy text." In general, I'm in
favor of reusing text where it makes sense. I will say
that there probably always is room for improvement, and
2050 is now pretty dated so updating the language to be
more relevant to today's practices & principles is
probably a step forward.
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>---</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>WRT the LIR/ISP I agree, we
should adopt whatever we think the standard term
should be.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>---</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>WRT using number resources instead of IP
address space I would have to take a careful
look and make sure we are not applying
principles that make sense with respect IP
addressing to ASNs if they don't make sense.
It is not clear to me if you think these
changes should be throughout the text, or only
in section 0.1. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
I probably wasn't totally consistent in my initial
comments. Since this is "RIR Principles" I believe this
policy proposal should refer in general to number
resources unless the statements directly apply only to a
subset of Internet number resources. <br>
<div> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">---</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
Andrew writes:<br>
> I think this section [<span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">0.1. Efficient
utilization based on need (Conservation)</span>] </div>
<div class="gmail_extra">> should have an
explicit reference to the difference</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">> in conservation
techniques for IPv4 and IPv6. A proposed
sentence might<br>
> be something like this... "Conservation
goals may vary due to the<br>
> technical differences between IP number
resources pools, for example the<br>
> relatively limited size of the IPv4
address pool causes a desire to see<br>
> the number space more highly utilized
compared to the vast availability<br>
> of IP numbers within the IPv6 address
pool."<br>
<br>
I made a conscious effort to keep this text in
section 0.4 for clarity. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">From the draf policy
section 0.4:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">"For example, efficient
utilization becomes a more prominent issue
than aggregation as the IPv4 free pool
depletes and IPv4 resource availability in any
transfer market decreases. Conversely, because
the IPv6 number space is orders of magnitude
larger than the IPv4 number space, the scale
tips away from efficient utilization towards
hierarchical aggregation for IPv6 number
resources."</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Does that text fulfill
your suggestion of "Conservation goals may
vary due to the technical differences between
IP number resources pools, for example the
relatively limited size of the IPv4 address
pool causes a desire to see the number space
more highly utilized compared to the vast
availability of IP numbers within the IPv6
address pool."</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Do you have concerns
about where this text is located?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
I realized later that I inserted similar "IPv4 is
different that IPv6" into multiple sections, since I
thought it applied in unique ways to each section.
Perhaps for clarity it should only be in section 0.4
Stewardship, since this is the section that talks about
balance between different elements and goals? I'm also
OK with it being only in one section, but I would want
it to somehow illuminate specifically that conservation
varies based on number resource. <br>
<br>
Perhaps just add the statement w/o example?
"Conservation goals may vary due to the technical
differences between IP number resources pools." <br>
<br>
Not a showstopper for me, if it isn't in 0.1.<br>
<br>
Building on Bill's comments in his notes, I think there
might be room toward using the term sustainability in
these principles. That term is well known in "corporate
speak" and might be closer to the RIR's goals &
principles compared with other words. <br>
<div> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">---</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"> <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Andrew writes:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
"Utilization rate of address space will be
an important factor in</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
justifying need for IP number resources.
However, utilization rates</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
will vary due to the technical differences
(e.g. IPv4 vs. IPv6) between</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
number resource pools."</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
</div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Again,
I made </span>a conscious effort to keep
this text in section 0.4 for clarity, and
would quote the same text.</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>Does that meet your concern about your
proposed text?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Do you have concerns
about where this text is located?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Perhaps just keeping it all in 0.4 is best.
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Should I repeat the paragraph in 0.1,
0.1.1, and 0.4?</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
I wouldn't repeat the paragraph.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">---</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Andrew writes:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>>
In order to promote increased usage of
Internet number resources,<br>
>> resource holders will be required
to provide an accounting of<br>
>> resources currently held
demonstrating efficient utilization.
Internet<br>
>> number resources are valid as long
as the criteria continues to be<br>
>> met. The transfer of Internet
number resources from one party to<br>
>> another must be approved by the
regional registries. The party trying<br>
>> to obtain the resources must meet
the same criteria as if they were<br>
>> requesting resources directly from
the IR.<br>
>><br>
>> All Internet number resource
requests are subject to audit and<br>
>> verification by any means deemed
appropriate by the regional registry.<br>
>><br>
></div>
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
I suspect the above two paragraphs may be
lightning rods against the</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
policy proposal. May I suggest the
following single paragraph in lieu</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
of the above two paragraphs.</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
In order meet the Principles and Goals of
the Internet Registry System,</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
resource holders may be required from time
to time to provide an</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
accounting and current usage of resources
currently held. The RIRs</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
shall set policies to define these
accounting mythologies as part of</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
their community driven policy process.</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
</div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">I'm
not sure why you think these two paragraphs
are lightening rods.</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">RFC-2050
3.3 says:</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">"</span><span
style="white-space:pre-wrap">T</span>o
promote increased usage of address space, the
registries will<br>
require an accounting of address space
previously assigned to the<br>
enterprise, if any."</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I believe including text that says orgs must keep
records of how the use address space is totally
appropriate. Record keeping doesn't necessarily
"proposed increased usage" but does provide
accountability and transparency which I believe should
be one of the goals of the registry system.
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
RFC-2050 3.1 says:<br>
<br>
"IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria
continues to be met."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
One might construe this statement to directly invalidate
existing legacy allocations which would now be in ARIN's
policy through this policy. Others might be worried
that this opens the door wider to changing policy to
retroactively revoke allocations or assignments by
changing "criteria". Furthermore, I believe this idea
is already handled by existing NRPM text and the RSA.
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<pre style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px;white-space:pre-wrap">RFC-2050 4.7 says</span>
</pre>
</div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">"</span><span
style="white-space:pre-wrap">The transfer of
I</span>P addresses from one party to
another must be<br>
approved by the regional registries. The
party trying to obtain<br>
the IP address must meet the same criteria
as if they were<br>
requesting an IP address directly from the
IR."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
I believe this "policy" element is best handled in the
details section of the NRPM rather than the principles
section. ARIN's policies already define transfers.
Having a generic "RIRs shall determine IP number
resources transfer policies through their community
drive policy development process." might be a good
addition to this proposal.
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div> RFC-2050 4.4 says:</div>
"All IP address requests are subject to audit
and verification<br>
by any means deemed appropriate by the
regional registry."<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
I just remember for multiple years discussing policy
2007-14 & others when we put into policy existing
auditing and review practices. Since ARIN's policies
and RSA already talk about audit procedures, I also
thought this was not necessary. The language "by any
means deemed appropriate by the regional registry" is a
wide open door that many I believe won't like. By using
text to say auditing is done by the community through
adopted policy you limit an RIR's auditing to
specifically what the community wants the registry to
do.
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>And there is lots of text about conservation
in RFC-2050 and </div>
<div>efficient utilization in the NRPM.
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Can
you elaborate on the lightening rod potin?</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
See above comments.
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">I
can only guess you are suggesting that the
community wants</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">to
depart from the principles in RFC-2050, but
think you must</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">mean
something else.</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">What
am I missing here?</span></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Hopefully my comments above illuminate the concerns I
had about the text. Basically it comes down to
"modernizing" the 2050 text/principles, and keeping
principles in the principles section and not putting
specific policy in the principles section.
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Andrew writes:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>>
0.2. Hierarchical aggregation
(Routability)<br>
>><br>
>> Policies for managing Internet
number resources must support<br>
>> distribution of globally unique
Internet addresses in a hierarchical<br>
>> manner, permitting the routing
scalability of the addresses. </div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
></div>
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
Should the RIR's goals be "LISP agnostic"?
That is if LISP becomes the</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
predominant routing methodology in the
future, one would not necessarily</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
expect the goals of the RIRs to change.</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
Suggested change to end of first sentence.</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
... permitting the routing scalability of
the addresses as required by</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
the current technical limitations of
global routing protocols.</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
</div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">I
think this change is good even w/o
considering LISP.</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Imagine
we have new holographic memory that can
hold orders of </span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">magnitude
more data and decrease read time</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">---</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Andrew
writes:</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">></span></div>
<div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>>
0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)<br>
>><br>
>> c) to ensure that a provider has
exhausted a majority of<br>
>> its current CIDR allocation,
thereby justifying an additional<br>
>> allocation d) to assist in IP
allocation studies.<br>
></div>
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
Suggested revision for "C"</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
to allow a LIR to demonstrate and disclose
reassignment of IP number</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
resources to third-parties</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
</div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">I think
the point is to demonstrate reassignment
data to demonstrate efficient utilization.
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">But I also
think that point is covered in section
0.1.1, So the rewrite here is ok.</font></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">---</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Andrew
writes:</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
Perhaps add a statement specifically about
Stewardship</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
"Stewardship of IP number resources is the
balance of overseeing and</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
protecting the interests of all Internet
stakeholders to further the</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
development and expansion of the Internet
and the Internet Registry System."</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<br>
I do not oppose this text.</div>
<div><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Andrew
also writes...</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
justified need as a conflicting goal
should be explicitly mentioned.</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>
"It should be noted that efficient
utilization, justified need, and</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>hierarchical
aggregation are often conflicting goals."<br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">I'm
not sure this parses correctly... This
sounds to me like there are </div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
conflicts between all three:</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">efficient utilization
vs justified need
vs hierarchical aggregation. </font></div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">How
about:</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">"It
should be noted that efficient
utilization based on justified need, and</span><br
style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">
<div>hierarchical aggregation are often
conflicting goals."<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">-</span></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 28,
2013 at 2:19 PM, Andrew Dul <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:andrew.dul@quark.net"
target="_blank">andrew.dul@quark.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I
support adding these guiding principles
to the NRPM, furthermore I<br>
would support efforts to introduce this
policy in all RIR regions to<br>
make this a global policy.<br>
<br>
Comments on the proposed text in-line
below.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<div><br>
On 5/17/2013 9:53 AM, ARIN wrote:<br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4<br>
> RIR Principles<br>
><br>
> On 16 May 2013 the ARIN Advisory
Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-187<br>
> RIR Principles" as a Draft
Policy.<br>
><br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4 is below
and can be found at:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_4.html"
target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_4.html</a><br>
><br>
><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>> ## * ##<br>
><br>
><br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4<br>
> RIR Principles<br>
><br>
> Date: 17 May 2013<br>
><br>
> Problem Statement:<br>
><br>
> The original text in RFC 2050
both "describes the registry system
for<br>
> the distribution of globally
unique Internet address space and<br>
> registry operations" and
provides "rules and guidelines
[principles]<br>
> governing the distribution of
this address space."<br>
><br>
> The currently proposed update
(RFC2050bis) "provides information
about<br>
> the current Internet Numbers
Registry System used in the
distribution<br>
> of globally unique Internet
Protocol (IP) address space and
autonomous<br>
> system (AS) numbers" and
"provides information about the
processes for<br>
> further evolution of the
Internet Numbers Registry System."<br>
><br>
> This means that the guiding
principles of stewardship are not<br>
> currently being carried forward
into the new document. The goals of<br>
> Conservation (efficient
utilization based on need),
Routability<br>
> (hierarchical aggregation), and
Registration (uniqueness) are as<br>
> important, if not more so, now
that the transition to IPv6 is upon
us.<br>
> This can be rectified by
documenting these principles in RIR
policy.<br>
><br>
> Policy Statement:<br>
><br>
> Section 0: Principles and Goals
of the Internet Registry System<br>
><br>
> 0.1. Efficient utilization
based on need (Conservation)<br>
><br>
> Policies for managing Internet
number resources must support fair<br>
> distribution of globally unique
Internet address space according to<br>
> the operational needs of the
end-users and Internet Service
Providers<br>
> operating networks using this
address space. The registry should<br>
> prevent stockpiling in order to
maximize the conservation and<br>
> efficient utilization of the
Internet address space.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
This section should use the new proposed
convention of "LIR/ISP" as<br>
being developed in ARIN-2013-5.<br>
<br>
s/this address space/IP number
resources/r<br>
s/Internet address space/IP number
resources/r<br>
<br>
I think this section should have an
explicit reference to the difference<br>
in conservation techniques for IPv4 and
IPv6. A proposed sentence might<br>
be something like this... "Conservation
goals may vary due to the<br>
technical differences between IP number
resources pools, for example the<br>
relatively limited size of the IPv4
address pool causes a desire to see<br>
the number space more highly utilized
compared to the vast availability<br>
of IP numbers within the IPv6 address
pool."<br>
<div><br>
><br>
> 0.1.1. Documented Justified Need
(Needs Based)<br>
><br>
> Assignment of Internet number
resources is based on documented<br>
> operational need. Utilization
rate of address space will be a key<br>
> factor in number resource
assignment. To this end, registrants
should<br>
> have documented justified need
available for each assignment.<br>
> Organizations will be assigned
resources based on immediate<br>
> utilization plus expected
utilization.<br>
<br>
</div>
Utilization rate is much more important
for IPv4 than IPv6.<br>
<br>
Suggested revision for "Utilization rate
of address space will be a key<br>
<div>factor in number resource
assignment."<br>
<br>
</div>
"Utilization rate of address space will
be an important factor in<br>
justifying need for IP number resources.
However, utilization rates<br>
will vary due to the technical
differences (e.g. IPv4 vs. IPv6) between<br>
number resource pools."<br>
<div><br>
><br>
> In order to promote increased
usage of Internet number resources,<br>
> resource holders will be required
to provide an accounting of<br>
> resources currently held
demonstrating efficient utilization.
Internet<br>
> number resources are valid as
long as the criteria continues to be<br>
> met. The transfer of Internet
number resources from one party to<br>
> another must be approved by the
regional registries. The party trying<br>
> to obtain the resources must meet
the same criteria as if they were<br>
> requesting resources directly
from the IR.<br>
><br>
> All Internet number resource
requests are subject to audit and<br>
> verification by any means deemed
appropriate by the regional registry.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>
I suspect the above two paragraphs may
be lightning rods against the<br>
policy proposal. May I suggest the
following single paragraph in lieu<br>
of the above two paragraphs.<br>
<br>
In order meet the Principles and Goals
of the Internet Registry System,<br>
resource holders may be required from
time to time to provide an<br>
accounting and current usage of
resources currently held. The RIRs<br>
shall set policies to define these
accounting mythologies as part of<br>
their community driven policy process.<br>
<div><br>
<br>
> 0.2. Hierarchical aggregation
(Routability)<br>
><br>
> Policies for managing Internet
number resources must support<br>
> distribution of globally unique
Internet addresses in a hierarchical<br>
> manner, permitting the routing
scalability of the addresses. This<br>
> scalability is necessary to
ensure proper operation of Internet<br>
> routing, although it must be
stressed that routability is in no way<br>
> guaranteed with the allocation or
assignment of IPv4 addresses.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>
Should the RIR's goals be "LISP
agnostic"? That is if LISP becomes the<br>
predominant routing methodology in the
future, one would not necessarily<br>
expect the goals of the RIRs to change.<br>
<br>
Suggested change to end of first
sentence.<br>
<br>
... permitting the routing scalability
of the addresses as required by<br>
the current technical limitations of
global routing protocols.<br>
<div><br>
> 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)<br>
><br>
> Provision of a public registry
documenting Internet number resource<br>
> allocation, reallocation,
assignment, and reassignment is
necessary to:<br>
><br>
> a) ensure uniqueness and to to
provide operational staff with<br>
> information on who is using the
number resource b) to provide a<br>
> contact in case of
operational/security problems (e.g.
Law<br>
> Enforcement) c) to ensure that a
provider has exhausted a majority of<br>
> its current CIDR allocation,
thereby justifying an additional<br>
> allocation d) to assist in IP
allocation studies.<br>
<br>
</div>
Suggested revision for "C"<br>
<br>
to allow a LIR to demonstrate and
disclose reassignment of IP number<br>
resources to third-parties<br>
<div><br>
><br>
> It is imperative that
reassignment information be submitted
in a<br>
> prompt and efficient manner to
facilitate database maintenance and<br>
> ensure database integrity.<br>
><br>
> 0.4. Stewardship<br>
><br>
> It should be noted that efficient
utilization and hierarchical<br>
> aggregation are often conflicting
goals. All the above goals may<br>
> sometimes be in conflict with the
interests of individual end-users or<br>
> Internet Service Providers. Care
must be taken to ensure balance with<br>
> these conflicting goals given the
resource availability, relative size<br>
> of the resource, and number
resource specific technical dynamics,
for<br>
> each type of number resource. For
example, efficient utilization<br>
> becomes a more prominent issue
than aggregation as the IPv4 free pool<br>
> depletes and IPv4 resource
availability in any transfer market<br>
> decreases. Conversely, because
the IPv6 number space is orders of<br>
> magnitude larger than the IPv4
number space, the scale tips away from<br>
> efficient utilization towards
hierarchical aggregation for IPv6
number<br>
> resources.<br>
<br>
</div>
Perhaps add a statement specifically
about Stewardship<br>
<br>
"Stewardship of IP number resources is
the balance of overseeing and<br>
protecting the interests of all Internet
stakeholders to further the<br>
development and expansion of the
Internet and the Internet Registry
System."<br>
<br>
Also...<br>
<br>
justified need as a conflicting goal
should be explicitly mentioned.<br>
<br>
"It should be noted that efficient
utilization, justified need, and<br>
<div>hierarchical aggregation are often
conflicting goals."<br>
<br>
</div>
Use the new LIR/ISP convention instead
of "Internet Service Providers"<br>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> Comments:<br>
><br>
> a. Timetable for
implementation: immediately<br>
><br>
> b. I believe that it would be
beneficial for IANA to adopt these<br>
> principles as well, and
encourage the community to consider
a global<br>
> policy proposal.<br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message
because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing
List (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net"
target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your
mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:info@arin.net"
target="_blank">info@arin.net</a>
if you experience any issues.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message
because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
(<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net"
target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing
list subscription at:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:info@arin.net"
target="_blank">info@arin.net</a>
if you experience any issues.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<font color="#555555" face="'courier new',
monospace">
<div><span style="font-family:arial"><font
color="#555555" face="'courier new',
monospace">_______________________________________________________<br>
</font>
<div><font face="'courier new',
monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jschiller@google.com"
target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div>
<div><font face="'courier new',
monospace"><br>
</font></div>
</span></div>
</font> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">
<div><span style="font-family:arial"><font color="#555555"
face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br>
</font>
<div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason
Schiller|NetOps|<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div>
<div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br>
</font></div>
</span></div>
</font> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>