If you are going to change it to shall, then you also need to define the consequences of non-compliance.
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 9:59 AM To: David Farmer <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements David, Kevin, Alison I am actually comfortable with an implementation that is short of revocation, but I am still not comfortable with "should". Should makes it optional. Officially not being out of compliance with ARIN policy makes it optional. I suggest that an ISP refusing to register a downstream customer is out of compliance with ARIN policy, and not just choosing to ignore an optional recommendation. If it is only "should" then an ISP can still hold the moral high ground while refusing to support SWIP on the grounds that they will not implement tooling and commit resources when it is only optional. It is a question of if you can hold someone accountable for not complying or if they are free to ignore something that is optional. Owen, Chris, Kevin, Certainly if there is enough support to move this forward, we shouldn't wait another cycle. (I recognize this weakens the "shall" position) My hope is if we can close out the discussion of this topic at the meeting with a clear understanding of if there is community support to move forward the policy with "shall" and also if there is clear support to move the policy forward with "should" in this cycle. This will give the AC a maximum of leverage to do what is needed, and insure it doesn't fall to the next cycle by forcing people to support only what they perceive as the best option. Assuming there is support for both "shall" and "should" the AC could choose to move "shall" to last call, and if there are then issues, move should to last call. We need to get clear on how to structure the question here. My thoughts are 1. Do you support the policy with "shall" if it doesn't require an extra cycle and support "should" in this cycle if "shall" cannot advance? 2. Do you only support the policy as written? 3. Do you oppose both the policy as written and with "shall"? When considering if there is enough support to move the policy as written forward, the AC should consider the hands in both questions 1 & 2. I support the policy with "shall" with a fall back to "should". __Jason On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:18 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I agree with Kevin if a bigger stick is need to ensure compliance in the future we can take that step if/when there proves to be a serious non-compliance issue in the future. Personally, I'm not ready to threaten revocation, in this case. My intent in suggesting what is now 6.5.5.4 was to crate an avenue for ARIN Staff to intervene with ISPs on behalf of customers, if a customer wanted their assignment registered and their ISP refused to register their assignment as requested, the customer can appeal the issue to ARIN. I'm fine with that intervention being short of threatening revocation, at least until their proves to be a serious issue with ISP's refusing valid requests by endusers to register assignments. I think the current language provides the proper balance. I'm fine with the standard procedure starting with ARIN Staff forwarding such complaints to an ISP requesting an explanation of the situation. However, if this develops into a chronic matter for an ISP, I would expect ARIN Staff to escalate the issue beyond simply asking for an explanation. Further after escalation, if the matter continues to be chronic, I would expect eventually the community to be altered to the situation. Probably not the specifics of which ISP and customers, but at least that there is an issue and some sense of the situation involved. Therefore, I support the policy as written. I'm not strongly opposed to changing from "should" to "shall" for section 6.5.5.4, but I'd prefer keeping that change in reserve, so we can go there, if there proves to be serious issues with non-compliance in the future. Put another way, I think voluntary compliance is highly preferred for this issue, and if voluntary compliance proves insufficient, then we can deal with that in the future. Thanks. On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I support the policy as written. If the stick isn’t big enough it appears a simple policy change could be used, not just for this section but all the other areas “should” is used. I would like to point out that “should” is currently used 30 times in the NRPM. In reading John’s explanation, I can’t see “should” and “shall” being considered an editorial change. To extend the policy cycle to another meeting would be far worse. Out of curiosity, how often has ARIN had to deal with SWIP issues like this, where the other party ignored you? Thanks, Kevin Blumberg From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM To: Jason Schiller <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements 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]<mailto:[email protected]>). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any issues. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected]<mailto:email%[email protected]> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE<https://maps.google.com/?q=2218+University+Ave+SE&entry=gmail&source=g> Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:(612)%20626-0815> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:(612)%20812-9952> =============================================== -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>|571-266-0006 ________________________________ ________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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.
