Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(David Farmer)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(William Herrin)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(John Santos)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(William Herrin)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(David Farmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:45:28 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 4/5/13 08:31 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:23 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
>> expand the allocation to /32 or /36 at any time without renumbering or
>> additional justification.
>
> Hi David,
>
> This could be misread to mean "/32 or /36 respectively" instead of
> "either /32 or /36 as the registrant chooses."
That's was bugging me too, but I wasn't sure how to fix it. How about;
g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
expand the allocation to either /32 or /36 at any time without
renumbering or additional justification. ...
Does that cover it without getting to wordy?
>> e. All returned block(s) must not be in use by the organization or its
>> customers.
>
> This verbiage is a little clumsy. I'm not sure how to word it better.
How about;
e. All block(s) returned must not be in use by the organization or its
customers.
Not a big change but it read a little better.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:31:57 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<cap-gugxijv70qh9babv0t+n3hcgxhm6h5iskwabea-c6bb7...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:23 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
> expand the allocation to /32 or /36 at any time without renumbering or
> additional justification.
Hi David,
This could be misread to mean "/32 or /36 respectively" instead of
"either /32 or /36 as the registrant chooses."
> e. All returned block(s) must not be in use by the organization or its
> customers.
This verbiage is a little clumsy. I'm not sure how to word it better.
-Bill
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:07:32 -0400
From: John Santos <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:23 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
> > expand the allocation to /32 or /36 at any time without renumbering or
> > additional justification.
>
> Hi David,
>
> This could be misread to mean "/32 or /36 respectively" instead of
> "either /32 or /36 as the registrant chooses."
>
>
> > e. All returned block(s) must not be in use by the organization or its
> > customers.
>
> This verbiage is a little clumsy. I'm not sure how to word it better.
>
> -Bill
How about:
e. No returned block may be in use by the organization or its customers.
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:07:05 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGU8z=7Lx_oZ3U+U9jE+=wzclkyf1kj1rny8+k2gq7o...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:45 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/5/13 08:31 , William Herrin wrote:
>> This could be misread to mean "/32 or /36 respectively" instead of
>> "either /32 or /36 as the registrant chooses."
>
> That's was bugging me too, but I wasn't sure how to fix it. How about;
>
> g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
> expand the allocation to either /32 or /36 at any time without renumbering
> or additional justification. ...
>
> Does that cover it without getting to wordy?
Hi David,
I'm not sure if "either" makes a difference. Maybe "expand the
allocation to a choice of /36 or /32.: Might also help to reverse the
order of /32 and /36 so that "respectively" doesn't fit right.
Or redo the whole sentence as something like, "A LIR that requests a
smaller than /32 allocation is entitled to expand the allocation to a
choice of /36 or /32 at any time [...]"
> e. All block(s) returned must not be in use by the organization or its
> customers.
>
> Not a big change but it read a little better.
It's the "All [] must not" construction that seems clumsy to me.
Normally it's "all must" or "no may."
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:25:21 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 4/5/13 10:07 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:45 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4/5/13 08:31 , William Herrin wrote:
>>> This could be misread to mean "/32 or /36 respectively" instead of
>>> "either /32 or /36 as the registrant chooses."
>>
>> That's was bugging me too, but I wasn't sure how to fix it. How about;
>>
>> g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
>> expand the allocation to either /32 or /36 at any time without renumbering
>> or additional justification. ...
>>
>> Does that cover it without getting to wordy?
>
> Hi David,
>
> I'm not sure if "either" makes a difference. Maybe "expand the
> allocation to a choice of /36 or /32.: Might also help to reverse the
> order of /32 and /36 so that "respectively" doesn't fit right.
>
> Or redo the whole sentence as something like, "A LIR that requests a
> smaller than /32 allocation is entitled to expand the allocation to a
> choice of /36 or /32 at any time [...]"
OK;
g. An LIR that requests smaller than /32 allocation is entitled to
expand the allocation to a choice of /36 or /32 at any time without
renumbering or additional justification. ...
>> e. All block(s) returned must not be in use by the organization or its
>> customers.
>>
>> Not a big change but it read a little better.
>
> It's the "All [] must not" construction that seems clumsy to me.
> Normally it's "all must" or "no may."
How about;
e. All block(s) returned are not in use by the organization or its
customers.
Which should be read as;
ARIN will accept the return of whole or partial block(s) allowing an
organization to reduce their holdings as long as: e. All block(s)
returned are not in use by the organization or its customers.
Better?
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 9
****************************************
