It's a no op then. There's no need to mention LOA's at all. On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, Heather Schiller <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The suggested text restricting LOA is: "ARIN will not issue a Letter of > Authority (LOA) to route a research prefix unless the allocation is > properly registered in whois." > > The text does not specifically restrict ARIN from issuing an LOA > altogether, it requires that the resource be registered in whois. I think > the text allows them to issue LOA for research where necessary and > legitimate. It should not impede them from issuing LOA in any other > circumstance (though, outside of research, I don't imagine they get many > requests for LOA) Can you foresee a circumstance where it would be > appropriate for ARIN to issue an LOA for something *not* registered in > whois? Do you think the current text impedes them from issuing necessary > and legitimate LOA's? > > --Heather > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Martin Hannigan > <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Martin Hannigan >> <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:52 PM, John Curran >> > <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> >> wrote: >> >> On Mar 31, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Martin Hannigan >> >> <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:00 AM, John Curran >> >>> <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> NRPM 11 was designed for parties requesting allocations from ARIN for >> >>>> research purposes; not ARIN checking the quality/integrity of new >> block >> >>>> received from IANA. Given the recent occurance, I believe it is >> prudent >> >>>> for ARIN to utilize NRPM 11 going forward for purposes of this >> quality >> >>>> checking, as it makes visible the organization doing the >> testing/making >> >>>> use of the space, including duration of the activity and research >> nature, >> >>>> as well as reaffirming the expected uniqueness requirement. >> >>> >> >>> If I understand this correctly, Matthew suggested that an update to >> >>> Section 11 would be more useful? If that's the case I agree. It would >> >>> require a few, simple, modifications. >> >> >> >> I think his suggestion to make use of NRPM 11 for this purpose is quite >> >> excellent. It was not process that we used in the past, but shall be >> >> done that way going forward. To the extent that the community wishes >> >> to improve NRPM 11 policy text for this purpose of address space >> testing, >> >> that is also welcome. >> >> >> >>> Why would ARIN ever need to issue an LOA if whatever is distributed is >> >>> in the registry? All the LOA responsibilities if even needed at that >> >>> point would fall to the registrant. >> >> >> >> Agreed; that is the major benefit of taking an "NRPM 11" approach to >> address >> >> space testing - ARIN stays focused on being a registry and leaves the >> use of >> >> address space to registrants. Since registrants are unique for a >> given address >> >> block, we also preempt multiple parties with potentially conflict >> plans on the >> >> use (or routing) of any given portion of address space. >> >> >> > >> > >> > Yes, I agree. This is the preferable route. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > -M< >> >> >> To add to this, it appears that we can condense most of the hand >> waving down to a modification in Section 11.4 that adds to the end of >> the paragraph "All resource assignments will be registered in the ARIN >> WHOIS database and in a manner not conflicting with any other >> registrations". Or any other language that would accomplish the same >> thing. >> >> We ought not to specifically restrict ARIN from writing an LOA. There >> may be a circumstance where it is necessary and fully legitimate. >> Admittedly, the instances where it would be needed would be corner >> cases, but operators in the AP region, for example, are very strict >> and I've had some strange reasons for writing LOA for my own prefixes. >> It may also interfere with the encumbrance testing that John >> mentioned. I suspect there are also some other tricky authority >> questions. >> >> This sounds like a legitimate error to me so this should be enough to >> instill a codified message that we want registrations and self >> service. Anything else needs more attention. >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List >> ([email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact >> [email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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.
