On 9/14/13 22:58 , Matthew Petach wrote:
Why not simply use a phrase like "significant fraction" rather than
"plurality"?
The problem with significant fraction, its overly vague, while plurality
may not be a commonly use every day word, it does have a precise meaning
and in this context that is "more than any other RIR's region".
However, since there are 5 regions the smallest possible plurality would
be slightly more than 20% within the ARIN region. However, in most
cases a plurality will be more than that.
Rather than significant fraction, if the community could agree on a
percentage say 20%, 25%, or maybe 30%, as a minimum percentage within
the region that would be a little simpler than plurality, and be
actually something staff could implement. I do not believe significant
fraction as the standard would give staff a policy that can be implemented.
change
" a plurality of resources
requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure and
customers located within the ARIN service region, and any located
outside the region must be interconnected to the ARIN service region."
to
" a significant fraction of the resources requested from ARIN must be
justified by technical infrastructure or customers located within the ARIN
service region, and any located outside the region must be interconnected
to the ARIN service region."
If we don't like plurality for whatever reason, I'd suggest;
"a minimum of X% of the resources requested from ARIN must be justified
by technical infrastructure or customers located within the ARIN service
region, and any located outside the region must be interconnected to the
ARIN service region."
Where X% is something like 20%, 25%, or 30%.
(representing a global network that spans 4 RIRs, but has no
customers, I also advocate changing from "and customers"
to "or customers", to relieve networks such as the one I work
for from being unfairly excluded from obtaining ARIN resources.
I'm ok with "technical infrastructure or customers", I've been debating
between, and, or, and and/or myself. Are there any objections to
"technical infrastructure or customers"?
I will also note for the record that as port density increases,
the number of devices we use is going down, not up.
They cost a metric shit ton more, and suck up more power
and need more cooling--but if you're measuring by "number
of boxes" rather than "capability of boxes", I think the expectation
that the number of boxes in a network will always be increasing,
as someone else further down in the thread claimed, is prima
facie false.
I don't think we want to be measuring the size of the network, at least
the number of devices used to build the network. Just that there is a
network, or portion of a global network, within the region.
Matt
(for the record, while I'm suggesting alternate language that
I think might be more palatable, as currently proposed,
I oppose this proposal)
Do you opposed to the whole approach? Or, Are there changes to the text
that would allow you to support the Draft? Or, is there another
approach to the problem you would propose?
Thanks
--
================================================
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
================================================
_______________________________________________
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.
