As the author of the original proposal, I do want to see the main part of
this proposal advance and be passed. Since it has now been pointed out
that the language is currently frozen until the meeting, I note for the
record that I have no problem with the draft as currently written, and
would like to see it advance and pass. Discussion up to this point seems
to be that the majority have no issue with the use of either word "should"
or "shall". Thus, like the majority, "should" is acceptable for passage,
and therefore I move for adoption as is.
The current draft is in 4 parts. Part one, to change the SWIP standard
from /64 or more to a larger size, currently /47 or more or individually
routed, is what I thought was wrong with the earlier standard, and what I
was seeking change in policy in the original draft, and what I would like
to pass.
Sections 2 and 3 are basically corrections, section 2 a mis-identified
IPv4 section reference changed to the corresponding IPv6 section, and in
section 3, removal of language that would make the new standard unclear
since /64 or more would no longer be the standard.
Section 4 is the section regarding downstream requests for SWIP, and has
the "should" and "shall" issue being discussed. It was identified during
discussion, and was not part of the original draft.
I would suggest that we allow the draft to pass as is, and come back with
a new draft changing that section to "shall" ONLY if it is identified that
there are a lot of issues with obtaining SWIP registration by upstreams
that do not think "should" is a strong enough word for them to act. Even
then, consider that an upstream that refuses to act on "should" may also
decide to not act on "shall" either.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, John Curran wrote:
On 28 Sep 2017, at 11:59 PM, Alexander, Daniel
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello All,
I just wanted to mention some procedural points to consider in this discussion
and thank you all for contributing to this debate. It does provide helpful
guidance to the AC.
The current text is frozen, and cannot be changed until it is discussed at the meeting in San Jose. However, it can be
discussed whether people would prefer "shall" or "should". If the community wanted the AC to
advance this proposal by changing "should" to "shall", without going to another meeting, it does
have to be discussed in San Jose with clear consensus, since that is not an editorial change.
Clear direction from the community helps the AC in their decision making
process. If the discussion and feedback at the meeting is clearly split between
changes to the text, it can make final decisions challenging.
Thank you all for your help in this process.
Dan -
Your reading of the ARIN policy development process in this regard is 100%
correct.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
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.
