Given this, I personally think that shall is the better choice of wording for 6.5.5.4.
Owen > On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:59 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I oppose as written. >> >> There should not be a different standard of requirement for: >> - re-allocation >> - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses >> - subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced >> >> which is "shall" >> >> and Registration Requested by Recipient >> >> which is "should" >> >> I would support if they are both "shall". >> >> Can ARIN staff discuss what actions it will take if an ISP's >> down stream customer contacts them and explains that their >> ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them? >> >> Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell >> them they "should" SWIP it? > > Jason - > > If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that has IPv6 > space from ARIN > but routinely fails to publish registration information (for /47 or larger > reassignments) > would be in violation, and ARIN would have clear policy language that > would enable > us to discuss with the ISP the need to publish this information in a > timely manner. > > Service providers who blatantly ignore such a provision on an ongoing > basis will be > in the enviable position of hearing me chat with them about their > obligations to follow > ARIN number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential > revocation > of the IPv6 number resources.) > > If the langauge for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by > Recipient” > reads “… the ISP should register that assignment”, then ARIN would send on > any > received customer complaint to the ISP, and remind the ISP that they should > follow number resource policy in this regard but not otherwise taking any > action. > > If the language for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by > Recipient” > reads “… the ISP shall register that assignment”, then failure to do so > would be > a far more serious matter that, if left unaddressed on a chronic manner, > could have > me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure to > comply with > number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential > revocation of > the IPv6 number resources.) > > I would note that the community should be very clear about its intentions > for ISPs > with regard to customer requested reassignment publication, given there is > large > difference in obligations that result from policy language choice. ARIN > staff remains, > as always, looking forward to implementing whatever policy emerges from > the > consensus-based policy development process. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
