Thank you for your feedback Dale. We are still gathering data at this point and I appreciate the mention of RFCs as I had not really considered that angle.
Brian Jones ARIN Advisory Council (NRPM Working Group) > On Dec 5, 2023, at 5:10 PM, Dale W. Carder <dwcar...@es.net> wrote: > > Thus spake Brian Jones (bjo...@vt.edu) on Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:28:18PM > -0500: >> >> Section 6.5.1.a “Terminology” explains that ISP and LIR terms are used >> interchangeably throughout the entire document. The NRPM working group in >> discussions with ARIN staff has concluded that the term LIR could be >> replaced everywhere in the NRPM with the term ISP. By my counts the term LIR >> appears 37 times in the NRPM currently, while ISP is referenced 62 times. >> The LIR term is utilized less nowadays than in times past and ISP is a more >> widely used and well understood term. The LIR term occurs more frequently in >> other RIRs and it is likely that if section 6 were written solely for ARIN >> the ISP term would have been used. So the question to the community is, >> would replacing the term LIR with ISP make the NRPM more consistent and >> readable? The NRPM working group would like to hear your feedback. > > I think that would be a step in the wrong direction. To me, the term > ISP seems to carry a strong commercial connotation that excludes the > existence of LIR entities that include governments, academic > institutions, non-profits, large scale enterprises, or even cloud or > content providers. > > Of course, I have some bias coming from a network that is very much not > an isp... ;-) > > The term LIR is used at other RIR's as you mention, as well as in a > number of RFC's since the mid 90's. Why should we diverge? > > I think you could delete 6.5.1.a and clarify in section 2 that LIR and > ISP may be used interchangably in the document, but personally I would > prefer use of the term ISP be cleaned up, not LIR. > >> Part b >> Section 6.5.1.b defines the IPv6 nibble boundaries . The working group feels >> like this definition would be a better fit if moved to section 2 of the NRPM >> which is the Definitions section. Your thoughts about moving the IPv6 nibble >> boundaries definition from section 6.5.1.b to section 2 would be appreciated. > > Sounds perfectly reasonable. > > Dale
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
