There is a style guide for the NRPM that the AC has access to. It would be trivial to add this guidance to the style guide once it is agreed upon.
Owen > On Nov 28, 2023, at 10:55, Douglas Camin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think Owen’s feedback here is important and worth highlighting to > potentially reinforce knowledge of that point – duplicative language likely > exists in the NRPM because in the past it was pointed out that people reading > the document had a hard time jumping around to piece together the full > meaning of a particular section. So, effort was made to replicate language > inline to meet that need. The pendulum is currently swinging the other way – > we are discussing efforts to remove duplicative language because it is > difficult to keep in sync administratively. > > I bring this up not to take a stance one way or another but to point out that > having a (relatively) agreed-to organizing principal on this concept will be > helpful to the AC and anyone contributing policy suggestions. > > Not entirely sure how to reflect that, but as a policy shepherd on the AC, it > would be helpful. > > Thanks – > > > Doug > > > > -- > Douglas J. Camin > ARIN Advisory Council > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> on behalf of Owen DeLong via > ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:29 PM > To: Dale W. Carder <[email protected]> > Cc: Christian Tacit <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 - Potential Simplification > (from the NRPM Working Group) > > > > > On Nov 28, 2023, at 10:23, Dale W. Carder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thus spake owen--- via ARIN-PPML ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>) on Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 05:54:49PM -0800: > > > > On Nov 20, 2023, at 12:59, Christian Tacit <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear ARIN Community Members, > > In our continuing effort to simplify the NRPM, we are also considering the > retirement of sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2. > > We believe that section 6.4.1 is out of scope since it constitutes a legal > conclusion regarding IPv6 addresses not constituting property, rather than > policy. Section 6.4.2 is a general statement regarding the lack of guarantee > of the routability of address space and also provides that RIRs (and not just > ARIN) “must apply procedures that reduce the possibility of fragmented > address space which may lead to a loss of routability”. To the extent that > this section validly articulates policy statements, it applies more broadly > to both IPv4 and IPv6 resources, and the statement in the NRMP should only > apply to ARIN. In fact, a proper routability constraint statement limited to > ARIN is already embedded in Section 1.3 of the NRPM, and thus not needed in > Section 6.” > > Community feedback and any proposals to address these sections are welcome.” > > > All valid points. The legal conclusion can be left to the RSA or anywhere > else ARIN’s lawyers which to stick it. > > Removing it from the NRPM makes sense to me. > > I agree. > > > 6.4.2 needs to at least keep the following key details: > + ARIN must apply procedures to minimize fragmentation of the address space > + AIRN cannot guarantee that any block can be routed or will be accepted by > any particular peer. > > Since we don’t have a section of the policy manual for things that apply > broadly to IPv4 and IPv6, we have, traditionally, duplicated them in sections > 4 and 6, which I think is fine. Preventing fragmentation in IPv4 is already a > lost cause at this point, so it is what it is. > > There's overlap between 6.4.2 and 6.3.4 to some degree on > fragmentation/aggregation. > > The routability aspect in 6.4.2 is also covered in 1.3. > > So with respect to Owen's points above this stuff could be merged > together and retained. > > Merged, yes, but 6.3.4 talks about the goal and desirability of reducing > fragmentation. 6.4.2 makes it actual policy that staff must take the > appropriate steps to do so. > > In the past, ew’ve received feedback that depending on a statement far > removed is confusing to consumers of the document, hence several places in > the NRPM where text has been duplicated from section 1 into more specific > sections (mostly 4, 5, and 6). I’m not opposed to reducing or eliminating > that duplication, so long as we do so consciously and don’t just spin back > the other way putting duplication back in place a few years later when we get > the same feedback again. > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ > 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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ 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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
