LOA has multiple meanings. See. http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/LOA However the author has defined it as Letter Of Authority (as per ARIN-prop-202).
Aaron Dudek On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, David Huberman <[email protected]> wrote: > Whether it's no-op or op, please note that an LOA is actually a "Letter > of Agency". Maybe some networks now call it a Letter of Authority, but > it's properly Agency. > > > > *David R Huberman* > > Microsoft Corporation > > Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS) > > > > *From:* > [email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>[mailto: > [email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] > *On Behalf Of *Martin Hannigan > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2014 7:23 PM > *To:* Heather Schiller > *Cc:* John Curran; > [email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2600::/12 LOA > > > > > > 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]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:52 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mar 31, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:00 AM, John Curran <[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 > >
_______________________________________________ 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.
