I see conservation not as a principle, I mean really the guiding principle
should have been distribution of addresses, not conservation of them.
The goal was to grow the Internet through the dissemination of addresses.
Conservation was not the principle, it was the means to prevent the emptying of
the free pool by bad actors.
These recent incarnations of this proposal continue to try to shoehorn
conservation as a principle, even to the point of including conservation inside
registration.
I don’t think it is either a principal or a goal, for that matter, just a
protective mechanism for free pool addresses.
With the exhaustion of the free pool, conservation has no place in the NRPM.
Until that time, we don’t need to clutter the NRPM with some hoary language
from another era.
I am still against the proposal.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: Bill Darte
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 6:49 AM
To: William Herrin
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised
No offense taken....and I assure you that it was not a smart ass comment, but a
somewhat cynical observation of history. But I do not see how you continue to
suggest that the principles of rfc 2050 are not just that. Conservation is a
principle which has as its goal longevity of address availability. Routability
is a principle which help preserve proper functioning of the Internet mesh, a
goal. And Registration as a principle has as its goal the unique usage of
numbers. I believe that they are principles upon which our goals have been
pinned and have been effective in my opinion.
bd
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:45 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
You're right John. Bill, I apologize for calling you a smart ass.
The draft describes desirable states, not a belief system. Bill
defined the former as goals and the latter as principles. Bill then
cleverly and deliberately mischaracterized my comment that, if that's
so, the draft should be relabelled with the correct word: goals.
Clearly I was wrong to view Bill's 'ditching principles' response as a
smart-ass remark. And even if it was, it was unforgivably rude for me
to have said so.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Sweeting, John
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Herrin, you are totally out of line here. Please clean it up, there
> is no excuse for your rudeness below. Period.
>
> On 7/10/13 8:47 AM, "William Herrin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Bill Darte <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Then perhaps we should ditch the word "principles" and stick with
>>>> "goals" like RFC 2050 did.
>>
>>> I think in this world, the ditching of principles has always proven to
>>>be a
>>> poor choice.
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
