<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Jason Schiller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">David,<div><br></div><div>My thoughts, please take with a grain of salt.</div><div><br></div><div>1. Problem statement is fine, but really is just one of many examples</div><div> of why this data is needed</div><div><br></div><div>2. I'd be careful with the use of the word ISP,</div><div> - I recommend it is better just to drop it</div><div> - I'd drop the timing part, and leverage pre-existing text instead</div><div> (as this is simple, convenient, and keeping them in sync makes sense) </div><div><br></div><div>-------------</div><div><br></div><div><div>1. Problem statement is fine, but really is just one of many examples</div><div> of why this data is needed</div></div><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure this NEEDS to be separated from the other proposal, </div><div>but it certainly could be separated. (What I would optimize for</div><div>is getting both changes through as quickly as possible.)</div><div><br></div><div>I think your problem statement is good, but is only a sub-set, </div><div>there are many things that require good contact info.</div><div><br></div><div>Certainly LEA is a big one, even more critical than a subpoena </div><div>is suicide threats, death threats, and abductions with timely </div><div>access is even more critical.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>One reason I focused on subpoenas is that it's not only an LEA issue, subpoenas involve civil matters as well, this isn't about just LEA and criminal legal system, but it is equally about civil legal system as well. This is about the exceptions society has on us the people that operate the Internet and not just the exceptions of government authorities. I'll add the other time-sensitive situations, I was a little leery of going over the top on that, and maybe underplayed it a little bit too much. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>The info is also used for technical reasons to determine who is</div><div>the party best suited to resolve some technical issue. E.g. the</div><div>IPs are being blackholed by a third party, a machine in the </div><div>address range is infected with malware, a machine in the address</div><div>range is misconfigured in a way that leaves it vulnerable to reflection</div><div>attacks, abuse or hacking attempts for an address in the range, etc. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'll add technical and abuse issues to the problem statement.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>----------</div><div><br></div><div><div>2. I'd be careful with the use of the word ISP</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I would caution the use of the word ISP. I think it reads just fine without it.</div><div><br></div><div>By definition any time there is a re-allocation, the address space is going </div><div>to be used by an organization that intends to re-use some of their address </div><div>space to their own down stream customers. In ARIN terms this makes </div><div>them and ISP and not an end-user, but I fear people will get wrapped up in </div><div>the term "ISP" and claim they are not one and need not SWIP.</div><div><br></div><div>If you think there is enough organizational separation to treat your </div><div>downstream (B) like a customer...</div><div><br></div><div>And they (B) think there is enough organizational separation to treat </div><div>their (B's) downstream (C) like a customer, and therefor request a </div><div>re-allocation (and not a reassignment)...</div><div><br></div><div>Then B needs to be registered in whois because they have a </div><div>re-allocation, and intend to make downstream subdeligations.</div><div><br></div><div>Now Imagine this is ISP "A" with a customer of University of "B"</div><div>who has a customer of The "C" department, who has a customer</div><div>of computer Lab "D". A. B, and C need to be registered because</div><div>they are all registering sub-delegations. This is regardless of if</div><div>The "C" department considered themselves an "ISP".</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the best way to deal this is to work on the definitions of Assign and Allocate in section 2.5. Further while look at that, I realized there is a grammatical question we should look at as well, is "reallocate" and "reassign" or "sub-allocate" and "sub-assign" the proper terms to use? The definitions in section 2.5 uses "sub-assign", but "reassign" is used several other places in the NRPM, and I believe ARIN Online uses the terms "reallocate" and "reassign".</div><div><br></div><div>---</div><div><a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sub-" target="_blank">http://www.dictionary.com/brow<wbr>se/sub-</a><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>1. a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin (subject; subtract; subvert; subsidy); on this model, freely attached to elements of any origin and used with the meaning “under,” “below,” “beneath” (subalpine; substratum), “slightly,” “imperfectly,” “nearly” (subcolumnar; subtropical), “secondary,” “subordinate” (subcommittee; subplot).</div></div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/re-" target="_blank">http://www.dictionary.com/<wbr>browse/re-</a><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>1. a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backward motion:</div></div><div>---</div><div><br></div><div>I think there is a strong argument for the use of either, however I don't think using both is a good idea, it only leads to additional confusion.</div><div><br></div><div>I think reallocate and reassign are used in more places and sub-allocate and sub-assign are use in fewer locations, causing me to lean toward reallocate and reassign. So I think the definition in section 2.5 should use reassign instead. But what do others think?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_-1260248187921604619gmail-m_-8764703433181013229gmail-m_2256539188004554108gmail_signature">==============================<wbr>=================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br>2218 University Ave SE Phone: <a href="tel:(612)%20626-0815" value="+16126260815" target="_blank">612-626-0815</a><br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:(612)%20812-9952" value="+16128129952" target="_blank">612-812-9952</a><br>==============================<wbr>================= </div>
</div></div>