Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>  
> Problem Statement:
>  
> Section 11 of the NRPM contains a great deal of language that is either 
> explicitly not policy, or is not impactful on ARIN’s administration of 
> Internet number resources for experimental allocations, or to the customers 
> requesting said resources. A revision to transform Section 11 into a 
> collection of policies for experimental allocations serves to make the 
> Section more easily digested by the reader, and a more functional reference 
> for customers and ARIN staff during experimental allocation requests.

I’m not completely convinced this is a real problem, but not inherently opposed 
to cleaning it up, either. The language has been in place for a long time and a 
review is probably overdue.

> Policy statement:
>  
> Section 11 Overview
>  
> Proposed text:
>  
> 11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
>  
> ARIN will allocate Number Resources to organizations requiring temporary 
> Number Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of a recognized 
> experimental activity.

No problems with this change.
 
> Section 11.1
> Proposed text:
>  
> 11.1. Eligibility Criteria for Recognized Experimental Activity
>  
> The eligibility criteria for a recognized experimental activity under this 
> policy are:

Note: I cleaned up the line breaks for the bullets, they arrived as a single 
wrapped line.

>  
> • The experiment’s description and objectives are published in a publicly 
> accessible document, which for the purposes of this policy means that the 
> document is readily available free of charge to the public, and free of any 
> constraints of disclosure within one year after the end of the experiment;

Suggest “…disclosure from application until at least one year after the end of 
the resources have been returned at the end of the experiment;”

As worded, the time period required is not entirely clear and use of “within” 
seems contradictory to the intent.

> • The experiment’s outcomes must also be published in a publicly accessible 
> document;

Suggest instead: “The experiment’s outcomes must also be published under the 
same terms as the previous bullet as they become available. In no case should 
the publication of results be available for less than one year after first 
publication.”

> • Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically sound; 
> and

> • Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically 
> coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the 
> proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed 
> services has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation 
> plans to contain any negative impacts has been provided.

OK. I think some word smithing might be in order, but I don’t have a better 
proposal at this time.
>  
> Retire Sections 11.2 and 11.3
>  
> Section 11.4
>  
> 11.4. Resource Allocation Term and Renewal
>  
> The Number Resources are allocated for a period of one year under this 
> policy. The allocation can be renewed on application to ARIN prior to the 
> expiry of the one-year period providing information as to why an extension is 
> necessary for a successful experiment. The resources allocated under this 
> policy must be returned to ARIN at the earliest of: (1)the recognized 
> experimental activity has ended; and (2) the end of the one-year period and 
> any extension thereof.

I’m fine with this.
 
> Section 11.5
>  
> Proposed text:
>  
> 11.5. Single Resource Allocation per Experiment
>  
> ARIN will make only one allocation per recognized experiment. An allocation 
> may consist of multiple Number Resources if required to conduct the 
> recognized activity. Additional allocations to an organization already 
> holding experimental activity resources will not be made under this policy 
> unless justified by a subsequent complete application relating to a different 
> experimental activity.

This seems like a significant improvement.

>  
> Retire Section 11.6
>  
> Section 11.7
>  
> Proposed text:
>  
> 11.7. Resource Allocation Guidelines
>  
> The Number Resources requested come from the global Internet Resource space, 
> shall not overlap any currently assigned space, and shall not be from private 
> or other non-routable Number Resource space. The allocation size shall be 
> consistent with existing ARIN minimum allocation sizes, unless smaller 
> allocations are explicitly required due to the nature of the experiment. If 
> an organization requires more resources than stipulated by the minimum 
> allocation size in force at the time of its request, the request must clearly 
> describe and justify why a larger allocation is required. All research 
> allocations must be registered publicly in ARIN’s directory services. Each 
> research allocation will be designated as a research allocation with a 
> comment indicating when the allocation 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Nov 1, 2022, at 06:15, Brian Jones  wrote:
> 
> See inline comments.
> 
> Brian Jones
> Virginia Tech
> ARIN Advisory Council
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 31, 2022, at 8:09 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML > > wrote:
>> 
>> I’m not sure we’re looking to encourage greater use so much as to make the 
>> policy more comprehensible.
> 
> Raising awareness that there is such a thing could increase usage.

It might, indeed, and if it does, that’s not a bad thing. However, I don’t see 
greater usage as the goal of this update. I see it as a possible additional 
outcome that could be positive.

> 
>> 
>> Section 11 is rarely used these days (though it is used), but it was quite 
>> frequently used in the earlier days of IP. Nonetheless, it does still get 
>> used from time to time, often enough that I think it is worth keeping it on 
>> the books.
> 
> I think it should stay on the books, it is a useful thing for researchers to 
> have access to, whether academic or otherwise.

Then we are in agreement.

>> Certainly any institutions or individuals who have made or would make use of 
>> section 11 are more than welcome to comment in this process.
> 
> I am not aware of Virginia Tech making use of this section of the policy, 
> however I can easily see several scenarios where an experimental allocation 
> would not only be useful but in some cases required either by contract or to 
> meet grant demands.

Indeed.

Owen

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Brian Jones]

See inline comments.

Brian Jones
Virginia Tech
ARIN Advisory Council



> On Oct 31, 2022, at 8:09 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML  
> wrote:
> 
> I’m not sure we’re looking to encourage greater use so much as to make the 
> policy more comprehensible.

Raising awareness that there is such a thing could increase usage.

> 
> Section 11 is rarely used these days (though it is used), but it was quite 
> frequently used in the earlier days of IP. Nonetheless, it does still get 
> used from time to time, often enough that I think it is worth keeping it on 
> the books.

I think it should stay on the books, it is a useful thing for researchers to 
have access to, whether academic or otherwise.

> 
> Certainly any institutions or individuals who have made or would make use of 
> section 11 are more than welcome to comment in this process.

I am not aware of Virginia Tech making use of this section of the policy, 
however I can easily see several scenarios where an experimental allocation 
would not only be useful but in some cases required either by contract or to 
meet grant demands.


> 
> Owen



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.

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

I’m not sure we’re looking to encourage greater use so much as to make the 
policy more comprehensible.

Section 11 is rarely used these days (though it is used), but it was quite 
frequently used in the earlier days of IP. Nonetheless, it does still get used 
from time to time, often enough that I think it is worth keeping it on the 
books.

Certainly any institutions or individuals who have made or would make use of 
section 11 are more than welcome to comment in this process.

Owen


> On Oct 31, 2022, at 15:23, Matt Erculiani  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the clarification Anita and Owen.
> 
> To clarify where I stand: 
> I absolutely see the value in permitting temporary experimental use of IP 
> space, and I do believe there should be special conditions around such usage 
> to make it easily accessible, yet resistive to abuse. I just don't think 
> these changes really make a significant impact on whether or not Section 11 
> is used going forward. I believe if we want to encourage greater use of 
> Section 11, it should be overhauled with input from institutions or 
> individuals who actually have made/would make use of it, not just changed 
> editorially. 
> 
> +1 to Nick's request for one or more examples, perhaps even a case study. 
> This feedback would be helpful.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:58 PM A N  > wrote:
>> Matt, 
>> The issue of wording was raised as the result of the (I believe) ARIN48 
>> Policy Experience Report. John Sweeting gave some stats at ARIN50 that I 
>> can't recall, but this policy is being used today. Section 11 streamlining 
>> better enables the target audience to understand the policies around 
>> requesting and using the space. The policy is not simply for educational 
>> institutions. A lot of research is done outside academia. Other RIRs also do 
>> research themselves.
>> 
>> It's optimal for some experiments or measurement research to be done "at 
>> scale" (ie not on Mininet in your lab) on "the real Internet" and not within 
>> the confines of all the policies, relationships and routing that your org 
>> already has in place. Simulations (usually) don't reflect real world 
>> conditions, making network research a lot harder. Fresh IPv4 space isn't 
>> needed for such things. 
>> 
>> If someone knows they only need temporary space vs getting a normal 
>> assignment which they know they don't need long term, AND more importantly 
>> they won't be using for actively routing user traffic, I'm not sure why this 
>> experimental allocation is seen as unnecessary.
>> 
>> Anita
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:48 PM Matt Erculiani > > wrote:
>>> >The policy has served the community well for a long time. As such, I have 
>>> >a hard time agreeing that the premise is doubtful.
>>> 
>>> Is there any data for how often this policy is used? Most educational 
>>> institutions have their own IP space that likely still have some unused 
>>> holes here and there; why would they not just use their own and have the 
>>> entire history (or at least a good deal of history) to further validate 
>>> their findings?
>>> 
>>> Also, are these allocations given priority over the rest of the waiting 
>>> list? If not, why would anyone bother being part of this process with so 
>>> many restrictions, when they could just get on the regular waiting list and 
>>> have the block for as long as they need without Section 11's restrictions 
>>> and prerequisites. 
>>> 
>>> I guess what I'm getting at is, if the policy is not being used, or isn't 
>>> particularly preferable over normal methods, how do we know it's broken 
>>> as-is? Was this edit prompted by an educational institution becoming 
>>> confused by its wording? Or is this just speculation that it could be made 
>>> more clear just in case it is used?
>>> 
>>> Also, 4 entire sub-sections of the 12 currently in Section 11 are being 
>>> retired as part of this draft, is 1/3 of the policy points perhaps a bit 
>>> aggressive for classification as an "editorial change". Again, I'm probably 
>>> missing a lot of prior context and precedent, but that just seems a little 
>>> excessive.
>>> 
>>> If Section 11 is not preferable to requesting a normal assignment under 
>>> Sections 4 or 6, resulting in under-use, perhaps a wider overhaul of the 
>>> policy is necessary, rather than an "editorial" change.
>>> 
>>> -Matt
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:25 PM Owen DeLong >> > wrote:
 
 
> On Oct 30, 2022, at 14:06, Matt Erculiani  > wrote:
> 
> First post on the PPML, please be gentle. Direct reply feedback is 
> welcome.
> 
> I have a general concern about a dedicated IP allocation for use with 
> experiments. If the block has ever been announced in the DFZ, it is 
> likely its reputation has been influenced by prior use. If valid results 
> are desired, a clean, never 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[David Farmer via ARIN-PPML]

Oh, and updates that followed;

https://labs.ripe.net/author/emileaben/has-the-routability-of-longer-than-24-prefixes-changed/

https://labs.ripe.net/author/stephen_strowes/bgp-even-more-specifics-in-2017/


On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 17:43 David Farmer  wrote:

> Here is an example of an experimental allocation made by ARIN;
>
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/author/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes/
>
> It is probably not a typical instance of such an allocation, but I’m not
> sure there is such a thing.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 22:09 Nick Nugent  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Anita. Perhaps it would help to hear more about experimental
>> activities like yours.
>>
>> What would - and this is a question addressed to the broader PPML - an
>> exemplary experimental activity under Section 11 look like? Are there any
>> real-world past examples that ARIN could share?
>>
>> Nick Nugent
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:13 AM A N  wrote:
>>
>>> Nick -
>>> That's a great catch. "technically sound within the meaning of ARIN’s
>>> Policy Development Process" is hard to decipher. I think the sentence
>>> should end after "technically sound". However "technically sound" is
>>> different from "technically coordinated" and I believe they should both be
>>> in there as requirements. Technically sound is a lightweight way to ensure
>>> that an experiment (or set of experiments) needs a resource space and that
>>> there is a reasoning behind the construction of the experiment.
>>> Coordination ensures that if goes awry, the experimenter has thought of how
>>> to mitigate damage.
>>>
>>> (I'm part of a group that runs a very large network testbed, and our
>>> general process is similar: justify what you're doing, and tell us how
>>> you'll mitigate effects on others.)
>>>
>>> Anita Nikolich
>>> (wearing non AC hat)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 8:23 PM Nugent, Nick via ARIN-PPML <
>>> arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks, Andrew.



 Question: Do we need the following eligibility criterion?



 * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
 sound within the meaning of ARIN’s Policy Development Process;



 A few thoughts on it:



 (1) It represents a new requirement (it’s not currently in Section 11)



 (2) I’m not sure it makes sense to define “technically sound” by
 reference to the Policy Development Process. Section 4.2 of the PDP defines
 “technically sound” in a very narrow fashion that’s highly specific to
 public number administration—namely:



 - Support both conservation and efficient utilization of Internet
 number resources to the extent feasible. Policy should maximize number
 resource availability to parties with operational need.



 - Support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a
 hierarchical manner to the extent feasible. Policy should permit the
 routing scalability that is necessary for continued Internet growth. (Note
 that neither ARIN, nor its policies, can guarantee routability of any
 particular Internet number resource as that is dependent on the actions of
 the individual Internet operators.)



 - Support the unique registration of Internet number resources. Policy
 should prevent to the extent feasible any unknown or duplicate use of
 Internet number resources that could disrupt Internet communications.



 Presumably, these criteria would be irrelevant to many experimental
 activities. And in any event, these criteria seem more fitting for how ARIN
 administers public numbers than for how a private experiment is conducted.



 (3) To the extent “technically sound” means that the experimental
 activity wouldn’t harm the operation of the internet, that requirement is
 already covered by the following criterion:



 * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
 coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the
 proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed
 services has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation
 plans to contain any negative impacts has been provided.



 Or am I thinking of experimental activities too broadly (or narrowly)?



 Thanks,

 *Nick Nugent* | *Amazon.com*
 Senior Corporate Counsel, Amazon Web Services
 Email: nic...@amazon.com



 *From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Andrew
 Dul
 *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2022 8:07 AM
 *To:* arin-ppml@arin.net
 *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL][arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy
 ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language



 *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
 not click links or 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[David Farmer via ARIN-PPML]

Here is an example of an experimental allocation made by ARIN;

https://labs.ripe.net/author/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes/

It is probably not a typical instance of such an allocation, but I’m not
sure there is such a thing.

Thanks

On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 22:09 Nick Nugent  wrote:

> Thanks, Anita. Perhaps it would help to hear more about experimental
> activities like yours.
>
> What would - and this is a question addressed to the broader PPML - an
> exemplary experimental activity under Section 11 look like? Are there any
> real-world past examples that ARIN could share?
>
> Nick Nugent
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:13 AM A N  wrote:
>
>> Nick -
>> That's a great catch. "technically sound within the meaning of ARIN’s
>> Policy Development Process" is hard to decipher. I think the sentence
>> should end after "technically sound". However "technically sound" is
>> different from "technically coordinated" and I believe they should both be
>> in there as requirements. Technically sound is a lightweight way to ensure
>> that an experiment (or set of experiments) needs a resource space and that
>> there is a reasoning behind the construction of the experiment.
>> Coordination ensures that if goes awry, the experimenter has thought of how
>> to mitigate damage.
>>
>> (I'm part of a group that runs a very large network testbed, and our
>> general process is similar: justify what you're doing, and tell us how
>> you'll mitigate effects on others.)
>>
>> Anita Nikolich
>> (wearing non AC hat)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 8:23 PM Nugent, Nick via ARIN-PPML <
>> arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Andrew.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Question: Do we need the following eligibility criterion?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
>>> sound within the meaning of ARIN’s Policy Development Process;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A few thoughts on it:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) It represents a new requirement (it’s not currently in Section 11)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (2) I’m not sure it makes sense to define “technically sound” by
>>> reference to the Policy Development Process. Section 4.2 of the PDP defines
>>> “technically sound” in a very narrow fashion that’s highly specific to
>>> public number administration—namely:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Support both conservation and efficient utilization of Internet number
>>> resources to the extent feasible. Policy should maximize number resource
>>> availability to parties with operational need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a hierarchical
>>> manner to the extent feasible. Policy should permit the routing scalability
>>> that is necessary for continued Internet growth. (Note that neither ARIN,
>>> nor its policies, can guarantee routability of any particular Internet
>>> number resource as that is dependent on the actions of the individual
>>> Internet operators.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Support the unique registration of Internet number resources. Policy
>>> should prevent to the extent feasible any unknown or duplicate use of
>>> Internet number resources that could disrupt Internet communications.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Presumably, these criteria would be irrelevant to many experimental
>>> activities. And in any event, these criteria seem more fitting for how ARIN
>>> administers public numbers than for how a private experiment is conducted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (3) To the extent “technically sound” means that the experimental
>>> activity wouldn’t harm the operation of the internet, that requirement is
>>> already covered by the following criterion:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
>>> coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the
>>> proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed
>>> services has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation
>>> plans to contain any negative impacts has been provided.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or am I thinking of experimental activities too broadly (or narrowly)?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> *Nick Nugent* | *Amazon.com*
>>> Senior Corporate Counsel, Amazon Web Services
>>> Email: nic...@amazon.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Andrew Dul
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2022 8:07 AM
>>> *To:* arin-ppml@arin.net
>>> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL][arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy
>>> ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
>>> know the content is safe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Updated markup and new version can be found here for your review.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021.pdf
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021-clean.pdf
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> On 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Matt Erculiani]

Thanks for the clarification Anita and Owen.

To clarify where I stand:
I absolutely see the value in permitting temporary experimental use of IP
space, and I do believe there should be special conditions around such
usage to make it easily accessible, yet resistive to abuse. I just don't
think these changes really make a significant impact on whether or not
Section 11 is used going forward. I believe if we want to encourage greater
use of Section 11, it should be overhauled with input from institutions or
individuals who actually have made/would make use of it, not just changed
editorially.

+1 to Nick's request for one or more examples, perhaps even a case study.
This feedback would be helpful.

-Matt

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:58 PM A N  wrote:

> Matt,
> The issue of wording was raised as the result of the (I believe) ARIN48
> Policy Experience Report. John Sweeting gave some stats at ARIN50 that I
> can't recall, but this policy is being used today. Section 11 streamlining
> better enables the target audience to understand the policies around
> requesting and using the space. The policy is not simply for educational
> institutions. A lot of research is done outside academia. Other RIRs also
> do research themselves.
>
> It's optimal for some experiments or measurement research to be done "at
> scale" (ie not on Mininet in your lab) on "the real Internet" and not
> within the confines of all the policies, relationships and routing that
> your org already has in place. Simulations (usually) don't reflect real
> world conditions, making network research a lot harder. Fresh IPv4 space
> isn't needed for such things.
>
> If someone knows they only need temporary space vs getting a normal
> assignment which they know they don't need long term, AND more importantly
> they won't be using for actively routing user traffic, I'm not sure why
> this experimental allocation is seen as unnecessary.
>
> Anita
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:48 PM Matt Erculiani 
> wrote:
>
>> >The policy has served the community well for a long time. As such, I
>> have a hard time agreeing that the premise is doubtful.
>>
>> Is there any data for how often this policy is used? Most educational
>> institutions have their own IP space that likely still have some unused
>> holes here and there; why would they not just use their own and have the
>> entire history (or at least a good deal of history) to further validate
>> their findings?
>>
>> Also, are these allocations given priority over the rest of the waiting
>> list? If not, why would anyone bother being part of this process with so
>> many restrictions, when they could just get on the regular waiting list and
>> have the block for as long as they need without Section 11's restrictions
>> and prerequisites.
>>
>> I guess what I'm getting at is, if the policy is not being used, or isn't
>> particularly preferable over normal methods, how do we know it's broken
>> as-is? Was this edit prompted by an educational institution becoming
>> confused by its wording? Or is this just speculation that it *could *be
>> made more clear just in case it is used?
>>
>> Also, 4 entire sub-sections of the 12 currently in Section 11 are being
>> retired as part of this draft, is 1/3 of the policy points perhaps a bit
>> aggressive for classification as an "editorial change". Again, I'm probably
>> missing a lot of prior context and precedent, but that just seems a little
>> excessive.
>>
>> If Section 11 is not preferable to requesting a normal assignment under
>> Sections 4 or 6, resulting in under-use, perhaps a wider overhaul of the
>> policy is necessary, rather than an "editorial" change.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:25 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 30, 2022, at 14:06, Matt Erculiani  wrote:
>>>
>>> First post on the PPML, please be gentle. Direct reply feedback is
>>> welcome.
>>>
>>> I have a general concern about a dedicated IP allocation for use with
>>> experiments. If the block has ever been announced in the DFZ, it is likely
>>> its reputation has been influenced by prior use. If valid results are
>>> desired, a clean, never announced block would need to be assigned to the
>>> research organization for each request. While I understand that ensuring
>>> the validity of any research is "their problem", I don't think that 1 year
>>> provides nearly enough time to research all bocklists, achieve removal, and
>>> perform the experiment, particularly considering some blocklist admins are
>>> difficult to engage.
>>>
>>>
>>> A virgin IPv4 block is a rather laughable concept these days.
>>>
>>> I think that experimenters should know and understand the realities of
>>> the modern IPv4 world and thus design their experiments to take such things
>>> into account.
>>>
>>> Remember, this is a policy which has been on the books for a very long
>>> time (more than the 20+ years I’ve been involved in ARIN at least).
>>>
>>> These are just some tweaks mainly aimed at making it 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[A N]

 Matt,
The issue of wording was raised as the result of the (I believe) ARIN48
Policy Experience Report. John Sweeting gave some stats at ARIN50 that I
can't recall, but this policy is being used today. Section 11 streamlining
better enables the target audience to understand the policies around
requesting and using the space. The policy is not simply for educational
institutions. A lot of research is done outside academia. Other RIRs also
do research themselves.

It's optimal for some experiments or measurement research to be done "at
scale" (ie not on Mininet in your lab) on "the real Internet" and not
within the confines of all the policies, relationships and routing that
your org already has in place. Simulations (usually) don't reflect real
world conditions, making network research a lot harder. Fresh IPv4 space
isn't needed for such things.

If someone knows they only need temporary space vs getting a normal
assignment which they know they don't need long term, AND more importantly
they won't be using for actively routing user traffic, I'm not sure why
this experimental allocation is seen as unnecessary.

Anita

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:48 PM Matt Erculiani  wrote:

> >The policy has served the community well for a long time. As such, I have
> a hard time agreeing that the premise is doubtful.
>
> Is there any data for how often this policy is used? Most educational
> institutions have their own IP space that likely still have some unused
> holes here and there; why would they not just use their own and have the
> entire history (or at least a good deal of history) to further validate
> their findings?
>
> Also, are these allocations given priority over the rest of the waiting
> list? If not, why would anyone bother being part of this process with so
> many restrictions, when they could just get on the regular waiting list and
> have the block for as long as they need without Section 11's restrictions
> and prerequisites.
>
> I guess what I'm getting at is, if the policy is not being used, or isn't
> particularly preferable over normal methods, how do we know it's broken
> as-is? Was this edit prompted by an educational institution becoming
> confused by its wording? Or is this just speculation that it *could *be
> made more clear just in case it is used?
>
> Also, 4 entire sub-sections of the 12 currently in Section 11 are being
> retired as part of this draft, is 1/3 of the policy points perhaps a bit
> aggressive for classification as an "editorial change". Again, I'm probably
> missing a lot of prior context and precedent, but that just seems a little
> excessive.
>
> If Section 11 is not preferable to requesting a normal assignment under
> Sections 4 or 6, resulting in under-use, perhaps a wider overhaul of the
> policy is necessary, rather than an "editorial" change.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:25 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2022, at 14:06, Matt Erculiani  wrote:
>>
>> First post on the PPML, please be gentle. Direct reply feedback is
>> welcome.
>>
>> I have a general concern about a dedicated IP allocation for use with
>> experiments. If the block has ever been announced in the DFZ, it is likely
>> its reputation has been influenced by prior use. If valid results are
>> desired, a clean, never announced block would need to be assigned to the
>> research organization for each request. While I understand that ensuring
>> the validity of any research is "their problem", I don't think that 1 year
>> provides nearly enough time to research all bocklists, achieve removal, and
>> perform the experiment, particularly considering some blocklist admins are
>> difficult to engage.
>>
>>
>> A virgin IPv4 block is a rather laughable concept these days.
>>
>> I think that experimenters should know and understand the realities of
>> the modern IPv4 world and thus design their experiments to take such things
>> into account.
>>
>> Remember, this is a policy which has been on the books for a very long
>> time (more than the 20+ years I’ve been involved in ARIN at least).
>>
>> These are just some tweaks mainly aimed at making it easier to understand
>> and more in line with modern realities.
>>
>> It's a really good idea in theory, but I don't think the practicality is
>> actually there. If anyone ever hijacks pieces of the research block, are
>> those going to be considered invalid for research purposes because they
>> were previously involved in malicious activity and are therefore "tainted"?
>>
>>
>> The process for cleaning “tainted” blocks is reasonably well known. I
>> don’t see this as any different from any other entity receiving a
>> previously used block which might be tainted.
>>
>> Basically, if the premise of the policy is doubtful, why would any
>> editorial changes be entertained?
>>
>>
>> The policy has served the community well for a long time. As such, I have
>> a hard time agreeing that the premise is doubtful.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Matt Erculiani]

>The policy has served the community well for a long time. As such, I have
a hard time agreeing that the premise is doubtful.

Is there any data for how often this policy is used? Most educational
institutions have their own IP space that likely still have some unused
holes here and there; why would they not just use their own and have the
entire history (or at least a good deal of history) to further validate
their findings?

Also, are these allocations given priority over the rest of the waiting
list? If not, why would anyone bother being part of this process with so
many restrictions, when they could just get on the regular waiting list and
have the block for as long as they need without Section 11's restrictions
and prerequisites.

I guess what I'm getting at is, if the policy is not being used, or isn't
particularly preferable over normal methods, how do we know it's broken
as-is? Was this edit prompted by an educational institution becoming
confused by its wording? Or is this just speculation that it *could *be
made more clear just in case it is used?

Also, 4 entire sub-sections of the 12 currently in Section 11 are being
retired as part of this draft, is 1/3 of the policy points perhaps a bit
aggressive for classification as an "editorial change". Again, I'm probably
missing a lot of prior context and precedent, but that just seems a little
excessive.

If Section 11 is not preferable to requesting a normal assignment under
Sections 4 or 6, resulting in under-use, perhaps a wider overhaul of the
policy is necessary, rather than an "editorial" change.

-Matt

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:25 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 30, 2022, at 14:06, Matt Erculiani  wrote:
>
> First post on the PPML, please be gentle. Direct reply feedback is welcome.
>
> I have a general concern about a dedicated IP allocation for use with
> experiments. If the block has ever been announced in the DFZ, it is likely
> its reputation has been influenced by prior use. If valid results are
> desired, a clean, never announced block would need to be assigned to the
> research organization for each request. While I understand that ensuring
> the validity of any research is "their problem", I don't think that 1 year
> provides nearly enough time to research all bocklists, achieve removal, and
> perform the experiment, particularly considering some blocklist admins are
> difficult to engage.
>
>
> A virgin IPv4 block is a rather laughable concept these days.
>
> I think that experimenters should know and understand the realities of the
> modern IPv4 world and thus design their experiments to take such things
> into account.
>
> Remember, this is a policy which has been on the books for a very long
> time (more than the 20+ years I’ve been involved in ARIN at least).
>
> These are just some tweaks mainly aimed at making it easier to understand
> and more in line with modern realities.
>
> It's a really good idea in theory, but I don't think the practicality is
> actually there. If anyone ever hijacks pieces of the research block, are
> those going to be considered invalid for research purposes because they
> were previously involved in malicious activity and are therefore "tainted"?
>
>
> The process for cleaning “tainted” blocks is reasonably well known. I
> don’t see this as any different from any other entity receiving a
> previously used block which might be tainted.
>
> Basically, if the premise of the policy is doubtful, why would any
> editorial changes be entertained?
>
>
> The policy has served the community well for a long time. As such, I have
> a hard time agreeing that the premise is doubtful.
>
> Owen
>
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 9:09 PM Nick Nugent  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Anita. Perhaps it would help to hear more about experimental
>> activities like yours.
>>
>> What would - and this is a question addressed to the broader PPML - an
>> exemplary experimental activity under Section 11 look like? Are there any
>> real-world past examples that ARIN could share?
>>
>> Nick Nugent
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:13 AM A N  wrote:
>>
>>> Nick -
>>> That's a great catch. "technically sound within the meaning of ARIN’s
>>> Policy Development Process" is hard to decipher. I think the sentence
>>> should end after "technically sound". However "technically sound" is
>>> different from "technically coordinated" and I believe they should both be
>>> in there as requirements. Technically sound is a lightweight way to ensure
>>> that an experiment (or set of experiments) needs a resource space and that
>>> there is a reasoning behind the construction of the experiment.
>>> Coordination ensures that if goes awry, the experimenter has thought of how
>>> to mitigate damage.
>>>
>>> (I'm part of a group that runs a very large network testbed, and our
>>> general process is similar: justify what you're doing, and tell us how
>>> you'll mitigate effects on others.)
>>>
>>> Anita Nikolich
>>> (wearing non AC hat)
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 30, 2022, at 14:06, Matt Erculiani  wrote:
> 
> First post on the PPML, please be gentle. Direct reply feedback is welcome.
> 
> I have a general concern about a dedicated IP allocation for use with 
> experiments. If the block has ever been announced in the DFZ, it is likely 
> its reputation has been influenced by prior use. If valid results are 
> desired, a clean, never announced block would need to be assigned to the 
> research organization for each request. While I understand that ensuring the 
> validity of any research is "their problem", I don't think that 1 year 
> provides nearly enough time to research all bocklists, achieve removal, and 
> perform the experiment, particularly considering some blocklist admins are 
> difficult to engage. 

A virgin IPv4 block is a rather laughable concept these days.

I think that experimenters should know and understand the realities of the 
modern IPv4 world and thus design their experiments to take such things into 
account.

Remember, this is a policy which has been on the books for a very long time 
(more than the 20+ years I’ve been involved in ARIN at least).

These are just some tweaks mainly aimed at making it easier to understand and 
more in line with modern realities.

> It's a really good idea in theory, but I don't think the practicality is 
> actually there. If anyone ever hijacks pieces of the research block, are 
> those going to be considered invalid for research purposes because they were 
> previously involved in malicious activity and are therefore "tainted"?

The process for cleaning “tainted” blocks is reasonably well known. I don’t see 
this as any different from any other entity receiving a previously used block 
which might be tainted.

> Basically, if the premise of the policy is doubtful, why would any editorial 
> changes be entertained?

The policy has served the community well for a long time. As such, I have a 
hard time agreeing that the premise is doubtful.

Owen

> 
> -Matt
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 9:09 PM Nick Nugent  > wrote:
>> Thanks, Anita. Perhaps it would help to hear more about experimental 
>> activities like yours. 
>> 
>> What would - and this is a question addressed to the broader PPML - an 
>> exemplary experimental activity under Section 11 look like? Are there any 
>> real-world past examples that ARIN could share?
>> 
>> Nick Nugent
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:13 AM A N > > wrote:
>>> Nick -
>>> That's a great catch. "technically sound within the meaning of ARIN’s 
>>> Policy Development Process" is hard to decipher. I think the sentence 
>>> should end after "technically sound". However "technically sound" is 
>>> different from "technically coordinated" and I believe they should both be 
>>> in there as requirements. Technically sound is a lightweight way to ensure 
>>> that an experiment (or set of experiments) needs a resource space and that 
>>> there is a reasoning behind the construction of the experiment. 
>>> Coordination ensures that if goes awry, the experimenter has thought of how 
>>> to mitigate damage.
>>> 
>>> (I'm part of a group that runs a very large network testbed, and our 
>>> general process is similar: justify what you're doing, and tell us how 
>>> you'll mitigate effects on others.)
>>> 
>>> Anita Nikolich
>>> (wearing non AC hat)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 8:23 PM Nugent, Nick via ARIN-PPML 
>>> mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:
 Thanks, Andrew.
 
  
 
 Question: Do we need the following eligibility criterion?
 
  
 
 * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically 
 sound within the meaning of ARIN’s Policy Development Process;
 
  
 
 A few thoughts on it:
 
  
 
 (1) It represents a new requirement (it’s not currently in Section 11)
 
  
 
 (2) I’m not sure it makes sense to define “technically sound” by reference 
 to the Policy Development Process. Section 4.2 of the PDP defines 
 “technically sound” in a very narrow fashion that’s highly specific to 
 public number administration—namely:
 
  
 
 - Support both conservation and efficient utilization of Internet number 
 resources to the extent feasible. Policy should maximize number resource 
 availability to parties with operational need.
 
  
 
 - Support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a hierarchical 
 manner to the extent feasible. Policy should permit the routing 
 scalability that is necessary for continued Internet growth. (Note that 
 neither ARIN, nor its policies, can guarantee routability of any 
 particular Internet number resource as that is dependent on the actions of 
 the individual Internet operators.)
 
  
 
 - Support the unique registration of Internet number resources. Policy 
 should 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Matt Erculiani]

First post on the PPML, please be gentle. Direct reply feedback is welcome.

I have a general concern about a dedicated IP allocation for use with
experiments. If the block has ever been announced in the DFZ, it is likely
its reputation has been influenced by prior use. If valid results are
desired, a clean, never announced block would need to be assigned to the
research organization for each request. While I understand that ensuring
the validity of any research is "their problem", I don't think that 1 year
provides nearly enough time to research all bocklists, achieve removal, and
perform the experiment, particularly considering some blocklist admins are
difficult to engage.

It's a really good idea in theory, but I don't think the practicality is
actually there. If anyone ever hijacks pieces of the research block, are
those going to be considered invalid for research purposes because they
were previously involved in malicious activity and are therefore "tainted"?

Basically, if the premise of the policy is doubtful, why would any
editorial changes be entertained?

-Matt



On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 9:09 PM Nick Nugent  wrote:

> Thanks, Anita. Perhaps it would help to hear more about experimental
> activities like yours.
>
> What would - and this is a question addressed to the broader PPML - an
> exemplary experimental activity under Section 11 look like? Are there any
> real-world past examples that ARIN could share?
>
> Nick Nugent
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:13 AM A N  wrote:
>
>> Nick -
>> That's a great catch. "technically sound within the meaning of ARIN’s
>> Policy Development Process" is hard to decipher. I think the sentence
>> should end after "technically sound". However "technically sound" is
>> different from "technically coordinated" and I believe they should both be
>> in there as requirements. Technically sound is a lightweight way to ensure
>> that an experiment (or set of experiments) needs a resource space and that
>> there is a reasoning behind the construction of the experiment.
>> Coordination ensures that if goes awry, the experimenter has thought of how
>> to mitigate damage.
>>
>> (I'm part of a group that runs a very large network testbed, and our
>> general process is similar: justify what you're doing, and tell us how
>> you'll mitigate effects on others.)
>>
>> Anita Nikolich
>> (wearing non AC hat)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 8:23 PM Nugent, Nick via ARIN-PPML <
>> arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Andrew.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Question: Do we need the following eligibility criterion?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
>>> sound within the meaning of ARIN’s Policy Development Process;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A few thoughts on it:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) It represents a new requirement (it’s not currently in Section 11)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (2) I’m not sure it makes sense to define “technically sound” by
>>> reference to the Policy Development Process. Section 4.2 of the PDP defines
>>> “technically sound” in a very narrow fashion that’s highly specific to
>>> public number administration—namely:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Support both conservation and efficient utilization of Internet number
>>> resources to the extent feasible. Policy should maximize number resource
>>> availability to parties with operational need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a hierarchical
>>> manner to the extent feasible. Policy should permit the routing scalability
>>> that is necessary for continued Internet growth. (Note that neither ARIN,
>>> nor its policies, can guarantee routability of any particular Internet
>>> number resource as that is dependent on the actions of the individual
>>> Internet operators.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Support the unique registration of Internet number resources. Policy
>>> should prevent to the extent feasible any unknown or duplicate use of
>>> Internet number resources that could disrupt Internet communications.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Presumably, these criteria would be irrelevant to many experimental
>>> activities. And in any event, these criteria seem more fitting for how ARIN
>>> administers public numbers than for how a private experiment is conducted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (3) To the extent “technically sound” means that the experimental
>>> activity wouldn’t harm the operation of the internet, that requirement is
>>> already covered by the following criterion:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
>>> coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the
>>> proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed
>>> services has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation
>>> plans to contain any negative impacts has been provided.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or am I thinking of experimental activities too broadly (or narrowly)?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> *Nick Nugent* | *Amazon.com*
>>> Senior Corporate 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Nick Nugent]

Thanks, Anita. Perhaps it would help to hear more about experimental
activities like yours.

What would - and this is a question addressed to the broader PPML - an
exemplary experimental activity under Section 11 look like? Are there any
real-world past examples that ARIN could share?

Nick Nugent

On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:13 AM A N  wrote:

> Nick -
> That's a great catch. "technically sound within the meaning of ARIN’s
> Policy Development Process" is hard to decipher. I think the sentence
> should end after "technically sound". However "technically sound" is
> different from "technically coordinated" and I believe they should both be
> in there as requirements. Technically sound is a lightweight way to ensure
> that an experiment (or set of experiments) needs a resource space and that
> there is a reasoning behind the construction of the experiment.
> Coordination ensures that if goes awry, the experimenter has thought of how
> to mitigate damage.
>
> (I'm part of a group that runs a very large network testbed, and our
> general process is similar: justify what you're doing, and tell us how
> you'll mitigate effects on others.)
>
> Anita Nikolich
> (wearing non AC hat)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 8:23 PM Nugent, Nick via ARIN-PPML <
> arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Andrew.
>>
>>
>>
>> Question: Do we need the following eligibility criterion?
>>
>>
>>
>> * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
>> sound within the meaning of ARIN’s Policy Development Process;
>>
>>
>>
>> A few thoughts on it:
>>
>>
>>
>> (1) It represents a new requirement (it’s not currently in Section 11)
>>
>>
>>
>> (2) I’m not sure it makes sense to define “technically sound” by
>> reference to the Policy Development Process. Section 4.2 of the PDP defines
>> “technically sound” in a very narrow fashion that’s highly specific to
>> public number administration—namely:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Support both conservation and efficient utilization of Internet number
>> resources to the extent feasible. Policy should maximize number resource
>> availability to parties with operational need.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a hierarchical
>> manner to the extent feasible. Policy should permit the routing scalability
>> that is necessary for continued Internet growth. (Note that neither ARIN,
>> nor its policies, can guarantee routability of any particular Internet
>> number resource as that is dependent on the actions of the individual
>> Internet operators.)
>>
>>
>>
>> - Support the unique registration of Internet number resources. Policy
>> should prevent to the extent feasible any unknown or duplicate use of
>> Internet number resources that could disrupt Internet communications.
>>
>>
>>
>> Presumably, these criteria would be irrelevant to many experimental
>> activities. And in any event, these criteria seem more fitting for how ARIN
>> administers public numbers than for how a private experiment is conducted.
>>
>>
>>
>> (3) To the extent “technically sound” means that the experimental
>> activity wouldn’t harm the operation of the internet, that requirement is
>> already covered by the following criterion:
>>
>>
>>
>> * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
>> coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the
>> proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed
>> services has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation
>> plans to contain any negative impacts has been provided.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or am I thinking of experimental activities too broadly (or narrowly)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> *Nick Nugent* | *Amazon.com*
>> Senior Corporate Counsel, Amazon Web Services
>> Email: nic...@amazon.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Andrew Dul
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2022 8:07 AM
>> *To:* arin-ppml@arin.net
>> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL][arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8:
>> Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>>
>>
>>
>> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
>> know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Updated markup and new version can be found here for your review.
>>
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021.pdf
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021-clean.pdf
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 10/26/22 10:44 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>
>> The following Draft Policy has been revised:
>>
>>
>>
>> * ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>>
>>
>>
>> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_8/
>>
>>
>>
>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
>> evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with
>> ARIN's Principles of 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[A N]

Nick -
That's a great catch. "technically sound within the meaning of ARIN’s
Policy Development Process" is hard to decipher. I think the sentence
should end after "technically sound". However "technically sound" is
different from "technically coordinated" and I believe they should both be
in there as requirements. Technically sound is a lightweight way to ensure
that an experiment (or set of experiments) needs a resource space and that
there is a reasoning behind the construction of the experiment.
Coordination ensures that if goes awry, the experimenter has thought of how
to mitigate damage.

(I'm part of a group that runs a very large network testbed, and our
general process is similar: justify what you're doing, and tell us how
you'll mitigate effects on others.)

Anita Nikolich
(wearing non AC hat)



On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 8:23 PM Nugent, Nick via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:

> Thanks, Andrew.
>
>
>
> Question: Do we need the following eligibility criterion?
>
>
>
> * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
> sound within the meaning of ARIN’s Policy Development Process;
>
>
>
> A few thoughts on it:
>
>
>
> (1) It represents a new requirement (it’s not currently in Section 11)
>
>
>
> (2) I’m not sure it makes sense to define “technically sound” by reference
> to the Policy Development Process. Section 4.2 of the PDP defines
> “technically sound” in a very narrow fashion that’s highly specific to
> public number administration—namely:
>
>
>
> - Support both conservation and efficient utilization of Internet number
> resources to the extent feasible. Policy should maximize number resource
> availability to parties with operational need.
>
>
>
> - Support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a hierarchical
> manner to the extent feasible. Policy should permit the routing scalability
> that is necessary for continued Internet growth. (Note that neither ARIN,
> nor its policies, can guarantee routability of any particular Internet
> number resource as that is dependent on the actions of the individual
> Internet operators.)
>
>
>
> - Support the unique registration of Internet number resources. Policy
> should prevent to the extent feasible any unknown or duplicate use of
> Internet number resources that could disrupt Internet communications.
>
>
>
> Presumably, these criteria would be irrelevant to many experimental
> activities. And in any event, these criteria seem more fitting for how ARIN
> administers public numbers than for how a private experiment is conducted.
>
>
>
> (3) To the extent “technically sound” means that the experimental activity
> wouldn’t harm the operation of the internet, that requirement is already
> covered by the following criterion:
>
>
>
> * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
> coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the
> proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed
> services has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation
> plans to contain any negative impacts has been provided.
>
>
>
> Or am I thinking of experimental activities too broadly (or narrowly)?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> *Nick Nugent* | *Amazon.com*
> Senior Corporate Counsel, Amazon Web Services
> Email: nic...@amazon.com
>
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Andrew Dul
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2022 8:07 AM
> *To:* arin-ppml@arin.net
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL][arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8:
> Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>
>
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Updated markup and new version can be found here for your review.
>
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021.pdf
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021-clean.pdf
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> On 10/26/22 10:44 AM, ARIN wrote:
>
> The following Draft Policy has been revised:
>
>
>
> * ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>
>
>
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>
>
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_8/
>
>
>
> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with
> ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the
> Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>
>
>
> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>
> * Technically Sound
>
> * Supported by the Community
>
>
>
> The PDP can be found at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
>
>
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Sean Hopkins
>
> Senior Policy Analyst
>
> 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Nugent, Nick via ARIN-PPML]

Thanks, Andrew.

Question: Do we need the following eligibility criterion?

* Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically sound 
within the meaning of ARIN’s Policy Development Process;

A few thoughts on it:

(1) It represents a new requirement (it’s not currently in Section 11)

(2) I’m not sure it makes sense to define “technically sound” by reference to 
the Policy Development Process. Section 4.2 of the PDP defines “technically 
sound” in a very narrow fashion that’s highly specific to public number 
administration—namely:

- Support both conservation and efficient utilization of Internet number 
resources to the extent feasible. Policy should maximize number resource 
availability to parties with operational need.

- Support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a hierarchical manner 
to the extent feasible. Policy should permit the routing scalability that is 
necessary for continued Internet growth. (Note that neither ARIN, nor its 
policies, can guarantee routability of any particular Internet number resource 
as that is dependent on the actions of the individual Internet operators.)

- Support the unique registration of Internet number resources. Policy should 
prevent to the extent feasible any unknown or duplicate use of Internet number 
resources that could disrupt Internet communications.

Presumably, these criteria would be irrelevant to many experimental activities. 
And in any event, these criteria seem more fitting for how ARIN administers 
public numbers than for how a private experiment is conducted.

(3) To the extent “technically sound” means that the experimental activity 
wouldn’t harm the operation of the internet, that requirement is already 
covered by the following criterion:

* Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically 
coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the 
proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed services 
has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation plans to 
contain any negative impacts has been provided.

Or am I thinking of experimental activities too broadly (or narrowly)?

Thanks,
Nick Nugent | Amazon.com
Senior Corporate Counsel, Amazon Web Services
Email: nic...@amazon.com

From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 8:07 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL][arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: 
Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.


Updated markup and new version can be found here for your review.

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021.pdf
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021-clean.pdf

Thanks,
Andrew
On 10/26/22 10:44 AM, ARIN wrote:
The following Draft Policy has been revised:

* ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

Revised text is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_8/

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate 
the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with ARIN's 
Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy 
Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:

* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
* Technically Sound
* Supported by the Community

The PDP can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/

Regards,

Sean Hopkins
Senior Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

Problem Statement:

Section 11 of the NRPM contains a great deal of language that is either 
explicitly not policy, or is not impactful on ARIN's administration of Internet 
number resources for experimental allocations, or to the customers requesting 
said resources. A revision to transform Section 11 into a collection of 
policies for experimental allocations serves to make the Section more easily 
digested by the reader, and a more functional reference for customers and ARIN 
staff during experimental allocation requests.

Policy Statement:

Section 11 Overview

Current text:

11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary 
Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of recognized 
experimental activity.

"Numbering Resources" refers to unicast IPv4 or IPv6 address space and 
Autonomous System numbers.
The following are the criteria for this policy:

Proposed text:

11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

ARIN will allocate 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Andrew Dul]

Updated markup and new version can be found here for your review.

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021.pdf
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021-clean.pdf 



Thanks,
Andrew

On 10/26/22 10:44 AM, ARIN wrote:


The following Draft Policy has been revised:

* ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

Revised text is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_8/

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will 
evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy 
with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in 
the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:


* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration

* Technically Sound

* Supported by the Community

The PDP can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/

Regards,

Sean Hopkins

Senior Policy Analyst

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

Problem Statement:

Section 11 of the NRPM contains a great deal of language that is 
either explicitly not policy, or is not impactful on ARIN's 
administration of Internet number resources for experimental 
allocations, or to the customers requesting said resources. A revision 
to transform Section 11 into a collection of policies for experimental 
allocations serves to make the Section more easily digested by the 
reader, and a more functional reference for customers and ARIN staff 
during experimental allocation requests.


Policy Statement:

Section 11 Overview

Current text:

11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary 
Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of 
recognized experimental activity.


"Numbering Resources" refers to unicast IPv4 or IPv6 address space and 
Autonomous System numbers.

The following are the criteria for this policy:

Proposed text:

11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

ARIN will allocate Number Resources to organizations requiring 
temporary Number Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms 
of a recognized experimental activity.


Section 11.1

Current text:

11.1. Documentation of Recognized Experimental Activity

A Recognized Experimental Activity is one where the experiment's 
objectives and practices are described in a publicly accessible 
document. It is a normal requirement that a Recognized Experimental 
Activity also includes the undertaking that the experiment's outcomes 
be published in a publicly accessible document at the end of the 
experiment. The conditions for determining the end of the experiment 
are to be included in the document. Applicants for an experimental 
allocation are expected to demonstrate an understanding that when the 
experiment ends, the allocation will be returned; a successful 
experiment may need a new allocation under normal policies in order to 
continue in production or commercial use, but will not retain the 
experimental allocation.


A "publicly accessible document" is a document that is publicly and 
openly available free of charges and free of any constraints of 
disclosure.


ARIN will not recognize an experimental activity under this policy if 
the entire research experiment cannot be publicly disclosed.


ARIN has a strong preference for the recognition of experimental 
activity documentation in the form of a document which has been 
approved for publication by the IESG or by a similar mechanism as 
implemented by the IETF.


Proposed text:

11.1. Eligibility Criteria for Recognized Experimental Activity

The eligibility criteria for a recognized experimental activity under 
this policy are:


The experiment’s description and objectives are published in a 
publicly accessible document, which for the purpose of this policy 
means that the document is readily available free of charges to the 
public, and free of any constraints of disclosure within one year 
after the end of the experiment;


The experiment’s outcomes must also be published in a publicly 
accessible document;


* Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically 
sound within the meaning of ARIN’s Policy Development Process;


* Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically 
coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of 
the proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its 
deployed services has been considered, and a description of 
experimenter mitigation plans to contain any negative impacts has been 
provided.


Retire Sections 11.2 and 11.3

Section 11.4

Current text:

11.4. Resource Allocation Term and Renewal

The Numbering 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> 
>  
> Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>  
> Problem Statement:
>  
> Section 11 of the NRPM contains a great deal of language that is either 
> explicitly not policy, or is not impactful on ARIN's administration of 
> Internet number resources for experimental allocations, or to the customers 
> requesting said resources. A revision to transform Section 11 into a 
> collection of policies for experimental allocations serves to make the 
> Section more easily digested by the reader, and a more functional reference 
> for customers and ARIN staff during experimental allocation requests.
>  
> Policy Statement:
>  
> Section 11 Overview
>  
> Current text:
>  
> 11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
>  
> ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary 
> Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of recognized 
> experimental activity.
>  
> "Numbering Resources" refers to unicast IPv4 or IPv6 address space and 
> Autonomous System numbers.
> The following are the criteria for this policy:
>  
> Proposed text:
>  
> 11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
>  
> ARIN will allocate Number Resources to organizations requiring temporary 
> Number Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of a recognized 
> experimental activity.
>  
> Section 11.1
>  
> Current text:
>  
> 11.1. Documentation of Recognized Experimental Activity
>  
> A Recognized Experimental Activity is one where the experiment's objectives 
> and practices are described in a publicly accessible document. It is a normal 
> requirement that a Recognized Experimental Activity also includes the 
> undertaking that the experiment's outcomes be published in a publicly 
> accessible document at the end of the experiment. The conditions for 
> determining the end of the experiment are to be included in the document. 
> Applicants for an experimental allocation are expected to demonstrate an 
> understanding that when the experiment ends, the allocation will be returned; 
> a successful experiment may need a new allocation under normal policies in 
> order to continue in production or commercial use, but will not retain the 
> experimental allocation.
>  
> A "publicly accessible document" is a document that is publicly and openly 
> available free of charges and free of any constraints of disclosure.
>  
> ARIN will not recognize an experimental activity under this policy if the 
> entire research experiment cannot be publicly disclosed.
>  
> ARIN has a strong preference for the recognition of experimental activity 
> documentation in the form of a document which has been approved for 
> publication by the IESG or by a similar mechanism as implemented by the IETF.
>  
> Proposed text:
>  
> 11.1. Eligibility Criteria for Recognized Experimental Activity
>  
> The eligibility criteria for a recognized experimental activity under this 
> policy are:
>  
> The experiment’s description and objectives are published in a publicly 
> accessible document, which for the purpose of this policy means that the 
> document is readily available free of charges to the public, and free of any 
> constraints of disclosure within one year after the end of the experiment;

Said document should also be required to be made available to ARIN for approval 
of the allocation/assignment.

>  
> The experiment’s outcomes must also be published in a publicly accessible 
> document;
>  
> * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically sound 
> within the meaning of ARIN’s Policy Development Process;
>  
> * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically 
> coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the 
> proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed 
> services has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation 
> plans to contain any negative impacts has been provided.

Should we consider requiring ARIN (and/or the experiment organizer(s)) to 
publish the intent to issue an allocation/assignment  and contact information 
for how to report negative impacts and/or request mitigation?


Otherwise, looks good to me.

Owen


___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Andrew Dul]

This is a typo in the latest draft the shepherds intend to change the 
word "policy" to "document" for this bullet.


Andrew

On 10/18/22 3:02 PM, John Santos wrote:
"Policy" is completely the wrong word.  Policies must be enacted 
according the the Policy Development Process, not by the published 
results of an experiment, as interpreted by the experimenter.


I agree that the results of any experiment conducted under this policy 
should be publicly and freely available.  Perhaps ARIN should provide 
a page or set of pages on their web site with the description, status 
and results of all past and current experiments conducted under this 
policy, but I think that is an operational issue.  The policy itself 
should just say something like "the results of any experiments 
conducted under this policy must be made publicly and freely 
available" and leave the details to the ARIN staff.


On 10/18/2022 5:07 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:


+1 Our policy should merely enable the ability to do experiments, not 
drive their outcomes one way or the other.


On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:39 AM A N > wrote:


    Agree with Owen - "policy" is not the optimal word. "The 
experiment’s

    outcomes must also be published in a publicly accessible policy”.
    Most of the time, the results of an experiment don't end up in a 
policy.
    They end up in a research paper, or end up being used by a 
company/lab. I

    think the spirit of this sentence is that doing an experiment on
    ARIN-allocated temp research space should result in publishing 
(however

    that's done - could even be a blog post or something) these results
    publicly. Perhaps a better phrasing is publicly accessible document,
    repository or format?

    Anita Nikolich
    (wearing non-ARIN AC hat)

    On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 6:02 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
    mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:

    “The experiment’s outcomes must also be published in a publicly
    accessible policy”—
    I don’t think policy is the correct final word to this 
sentence… Many
    experiments (most I would venture to say) don’t result in 
policies.
    Perhaps document, report, or some other word would be more 
appropriate here?


    "Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is 
technically
    coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative 
impact of

    the proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its
    deployed services has been considered, and a description of 
experimenter
    mitigation plans to contain any negative impacts has been 
provided.” —
    I think “adequately coordinated”, “properly coordinated”, or 
simply

    “coordinated” would be better choices of wording here.

    I think 11.4 can be further simplified… suggest:
    The number Resources are allocated for the duration of the 
experiment,
    not to exceed one year. An extension may be granted at staff 
discretion
    upon application to ARIN documenting the need for more time 
to complete

    a successful experiment.

    Owen



    On Sep 19, 2022, at 13:49 , ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> wrote:

    The following Draft Policy has been revised:
    __ __
    * ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
    __ __
    Revised text is below and can be found at:
    __ __
    https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_8/

    __ __
    You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. 
The AC will
    evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this 
Draft Policy
    with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as 
stated in
    the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these 
principles are:

    __ __
    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
    * Technically Sound
    * Supported by the Community
    __ __
    The PDP can be found at:
    https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
    
    __ __
    Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
    https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/

    __ __
    Regards,
    __ __
    Sean Hopkins
    Senior Policy Analyst
    American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
    __ __
    __ __
    __ __
    Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy 
Language

    __ __
    Problem Statement:
    __ __
    Section 11 of the NRPM contains a great deal of language 
that is

    either explicitly not policy, or is not impactful on ARIN's
    administration of Internet number resources for experimental
    allocations, or to the customers requesting said resources. 
A revision
 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[John Santos]

"Policy" is completely the wrong word.  Policies must be enacted according the 
the Policy Development Process, not by the published results of an experiment, 
as interpreted by the experimenter.


I agree that the results of any experiment conducted under this policy should be 
publicly and freely available.  Perhaps ARIN should provide a page or set of 
pages on their web site with the description, status and results of all past and 
current experiments conducted under this policy, but I think that is an 
operational issue.  The policy itself should just say something like "the 
results of any experiments conducted under this policy must be made publicly and 
freely available" and leave the details to the ARIN staff.


On 10/18/2022 5:07 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:


+1 Our policy should merely enable the ability to do experiments, not drive 
their outcomes one way or the other.


On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:39 AM A N > wrote:


Agree with Owen - "policy" is not the optimal word. "The experiment’s
outcomes must also be published in a publicly accessible policy”.
Most of the time, the results of an experiment don't end up in a policy.
They end up in a research paper, or end up being used by a company/lab. I
think the spirit of this sentence is that doing an experiment on
ARIN-allocated temp research space should result in publishing (however
that's done - could even be a blog post or something) these results
publicly. Perhaps a better phrasing is publicly accessible document,
repository or format?

Anita Nikolich
(wearing non-ARIN AC hat)

On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 6:02 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:

“The experiment’s outcomes must also be published in a publicly
accessible policy”—
I don’t think policy is the correct final word to this sentence… Many
experiments (most I would venture to say) don’t result in policies.
Perhaps document, report, or some other word would be more appropriate 
here?

"Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of
the proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its
deployed services has been considered, and a description of experimenter
mitigation plans to contain any negative impacts has been provided.” —
I think “adequately coordinated”, “properly coordinated”, or simply
“coordinated” would be better choices of wording here.

I think 11.4 can be further simplified… suggest:
The number Resources are allocated for the duration of the experiment,
not to exceed one year. An extension may be granted at staff discretion
upon application to ARIN documenting the need for more time to complete
a successful experiment.

Owen



On Sep 19, 2022, at 13:49 , ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> wrote:

The following Draft Policy has been revised:
__ __
* ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
__ __
Revised text is below and can be found at:
__ __
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_8/

__ __
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy
with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in
the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles 
are:
__ __
* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
* Technically Sound
* Supported by the Community
__ __
The PDP can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/

__ __
Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/

__ __
Regards,
__ __
Sean Hopkins
Senior Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
__ __
__ __
__ __
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
__ __
Problem Statement:
__ __
Section 11 of the NRPM contains a great deal of language that is
either explicitly not policy, or is not impactful on ARIN's
administration of Internet number resources for experimental
allocations, or to the customers requesting said resources. A revision
to transform Section 11 into a collection of policies for experimental
allocations serves to make the Section more easily digested by the
reader, and a more 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Martin Hannigan]

+1 Our policy should merely enable the ability to do experiments, not drive
their outcomes one way or the other.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:39 AM A N  wrote:

> Agree with Owen - "policy" is not the optimal word. "The experiment’s
> outcomes must also be published in a publicly accessible policy”.
> Most of the time, the results of an experiment don't end up in a policy.
> They end up in a research paper, or end up being used by a company/lab. I
> think the spirit of this sentence is that doing an experiment on
> ARIN-allocated temp research space should result in publishing (however
> that's done - could even be a blog post or something) these results
> publicly. Perhaps a better phrasing is publicly accessible document,
> repository or format?
>
> Anita Nikolich
> (wearing non-ARIN AC hat)
>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 6:02 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <
> arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
>
>> “The experiment’s outcomes must also be published in a publicly
>> accessible policy”—
>> I don’t think policy is the correct final word to this sentence… Many
>> experiments (most I would venture to say) don’t result in policies.
>> Perhaps document, report, or some other word would be more appropriate
>> here?
>>
>> "Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
>> coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the
>> proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed
>> services has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation
>> plans to contain any negative impacts has been provided.” —
>> I think “adequately coordinated”, “properly coordinated”, or simply
>> “coordinated” would be better choices of wording here.
>>
>> I think 11.4 can be further simplified… suggest:
>> The number Resources are allocated for the duration of the experiment,
>> not to exceed one year. An extension may be granted at staff discretion
>> upon application to ARIN documenting the need for more time to complete a
>> successful experiment.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2022, at 13:49 , ARIN  wrote:
>>
>> The following Draft Policy has been revised:
>>
>> * ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>>
>> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_8/
>>
>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
>> evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with
>> ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the
>> Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>>
>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>> * Technically Sound
>> * Supported by the Community
>>
>> The PDP can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
>>
>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sean Hopkins
>> Senior Policy Analyst
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>>
>> Problem Statement:
>>
>> Section 11 of the NRPM contains a great deal of language that is either
>> explicitly not policy, or is not impactful on ARIN's administration of
>> Internet number resources for experimental allocations, or to the customers
>> requesting said resources. A revision to transform Section 11 into a
>> collection of policies for experimental allocations serves to make the
>> Section more easily digested by the reader, and a more functional reference
>> for customers and ARIN staff during experimental allocation requests.
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> Section 11 Overview
>> Current text:
>> 11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
>> ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary
>> Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of
>> recognized experimental activity.
>> "Numbering Resources" refers to unicast IPv4 or IPv6 address space and
>> Autonomous System numbers.
>> The following are the criteria for this policy:
>> Proposed text:
>> 11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
>> ARIN will allocate Number Resources to organizations requiring temporary
>> Number Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of a recognized
>> experimental activity.
>> Section 11.1
>> Current text:
>> 11.1. Documentation of Recognized Experimental Activity
>> A Recognized Experimental Activity is one where the experiment's
>> objectives and practices are described in a publicly accessible document.
>> It is a normal requirement that a Recognized Experimental Activity also
>> includes the undertaking that the experiment's outcomes be published in a
>> publicly accessible document at the end of the experiment. The conditions
>> for determining the end of the experiment are to be included in the
>> document. Applicants for an experimental allocation are expected to
>> demonstrate an 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[A N]

Agree with Owen - "policy" is not the optimal word. "The experiment’s
outcomes must also be published in a publicly accessible policy”.
Most of the time, the results of an experiment don't end up in a policy.
They end up in a research paper, or end up being used by a company/lab. I
think the spirit of this sentence is that doing an experiment on
ARIN-allocated temp research space should result in publishing (however
that's done - could even be a blog post or something) these results
publicly. Perhaps a better phrasing is publicly accessible document,
repository or format?

Anita Nikolich
(wearing non-ARIN AC hat)

On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 6:02 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:

> “The experiment’s outcomes must also be published in a publicly accessible
> policy”—
> I don’t think policy is the correct final word to this sentence… Many
> experiments (most I would venture to say) don’t result in policies.
> Perhaps document, report, or some other word would be more appropriate
> here?
>
> "Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically
> coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the
> proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed
> services has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation
> plans to contain any negative impacts has been provided.” —
> I think “adequately coordinated”, “properly coordinated”, or simply
> “coordinated” would be better choices of wording here.
>
> I think 11.4 can be further simplified… suggest:
> The number Resources are allocated for the duration of the experiment, not
> to exceed one year. An extension may be granted at staff discretion upon
> application to ARIN documenting the need for more time to complete a
> successful experiment.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2022, at 13:49 , ARIN  wrote:
>
> The following Draft Policy has been revised:
>
> * ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_8/
>
> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with
> ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the
> Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>
> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> * Technically Sound
> * Supported by the Community
>
> The PDP can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Senior Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> Section 11 of the NRPM contains a great deal of language that is either
> explicitly not policy, or is not impactful on ARIN's administration of
> Internet number resources for experimental allocations, or to the customers
> requesting said resources. A revision to transform Section 11 into a
> collection of policies for experimental allocations serves to make the
> Section more easily digested by the reader, and a more functional reference
> for customers and ARIN staff during experimental allocation requests.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Section 11 Overview
> Current text:
> 11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
> ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary
> Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of
> recognized experimental activity.
> "Numbering Resources" refers to unicast IPv4 or IPv6 address space and
> Autonomous System numbers.
> The following are the criteria for this policy:
> Proposed text:
> 11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
> ARIN will allocate Number Resources to organizations requiring temporary
> Number Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of a recognized
> experimental activity.
> Section 11.1
> Current text:
> 11.1. Documentation of Recognized Experimental Activity
> A Recognized Experimental Activity is one where the experiment's
> objectives and practices are described in a publicly accessible document.
> It is a normal requirement that a Recognized Experimental Activity also
> includes the undertaking that the experiment's outcomes be published in a
> publicly accessible document at the end of the experiment. The conditions
> for determining the end of the experiment are to be included in the
> document. Applicants for an experimental allocation are expected to
> demonstrate an understanding that when the experiment ends, the allocation
> will be returned; a successful experiment may need a new allocation under
> normal policies in order to continue in production or commercial use, but
> will not retain the experimental allocation.
> A "publicly accessible document" 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

“The experiment’s outcomes must also be published in a publicly accessible 
policy”—
I don’t think policy is the correct final word to this sentence… Many 
experiments (most I would venture to say) don’t result in policies.
Perhaps document, report, or some other word would be more appropriate here?

"Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is technically 
coordinated in that consideration of any potential negative impact of the 
proposed experiment on the operation of the Internet and its deployed services 
has been considered, and a description of experimenter mitigation plans to 
contain any negative impacts has been provided.” —
I think “adequately coordinated”, “properly coordinated”, or simply 
“coordinated” would be better choices of wording here.

I think 11.4 can be further simplified… suggest:
The number Resources are allocated for the duration of the experiment, not to 
exceed one year. An extension may be granted at staff discretion upon 
application to ARIN documenting the need for more time to complete a successful 
experiment.

Owen


> On Sep 19, 2022, at 13:49 , ARIN  wrote:
> 
> The following Draft Policy has been revised:
>  
> * ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>  
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>  
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_8/ 
> 
>  
> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will 
> evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with 
> ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy 
> Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>  
> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> * Technically Sound
> * Supported by the Community
>  
> The PDP can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ 
> 
>  
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ 
> 
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Sean Hopkins
> Senior Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>  
>  
>  
> Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
>  
> Problem Statement:
>  
> Section 11 of the NRPM contains a great deal of language that is either 
> explicitly not policy, or is not impactful on ARIN's administration of 
> Internet number resources for experimental allocations, or to the customers 
> requesting said resources. A revision to transform Section 11 into a 
> collection of policies for experimental allocations serves to make the 
> Section more easily digested by the reader, and a more functional reference 
> for customers and ARIN staff during experimental allocation requests.
>  
> Policy statement:
>  
> Section 11 Overview
> Current text:
> 11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
> ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary 
> Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of recognized 
> experimental activity.
> "Numbering Resources" refers to unicast IPv4 or IPv6 address space and 
> Autonomous System numbers.
> The following are the criteria for this policy:
> Proposed text:
> 11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
> ARIN will allocate Number Resources to organizations requiring temporary 
> Number Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of a recognized 
> experimental activity.
> Section 11.1
> Current text:
> 11.1. Documentation of Recognized Experimental Activity
> A Recognized Experimental Activity is one where the experiment's objectives 
> and practices are described in a publicly accessible document. It is a normal 
> requirement that a Recognized Experimental Activity also includes the 
> undertaking that the experiment's outcomes be published in a publicly 
> accessible document at the end of the experiment. The conditions for 
> determining the end of the experiment are to be included in the document. 
> Applicants for an experimental allocation are expected to demonstrate an 
> understanding that when the experiment ends, the allocation will be returned; 
> a successful experiment may need a new allocation under normal policies in 
> order to continue in production or commercial use, but will not retain the 
> experimental allocation.
> A "publicly accessible document" is a document that is publicly and openly 
> available free of charges and free of any constraints of disclosure.
> ARIN will not recognize an experimental activity under this policy if the 
> entire research experiment cannot be publicly disclosed.
> ARIN has a strong preference for the recognition of experimental activity 
> documentation in the form of a document which has been approved for 
> publication by the IESG or by a similar mechanism as implemented by the IETF.
> Proposed text:
> 11.1. Eligibility 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

[Andrew Dul]

Hello,

We have prepared an updated documents showing the intended changes of 
section 11 to assist with the discussion at the upcoming meeting.   
Please see the links below or the attached PDFs.


https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221012.pdf

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221012-clean.pdf


Thank you,
Andrew


On 9/19/2022 1:49 PM, ARIN wrote:


The following Draft Policy has been revised:

* ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

Revised text is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_8/

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will 
evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy 
with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in 
the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:


* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration

* Technically Sound

* Supported by the Community

The PDP can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/

Regards,

Sean Hopkins

Senior Policy Analyst

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

Problem Statement:

Section 11 of the NRPM contains a great deal of language that is 
either explicitly not policy, or is not impactful on ARIN's 
administration of Internet number resources for experimental 
allocations, or to the customers requesting said resources. A revision 
to transform Section 11 into a collection of policies for experimental 
allocations serves to make the Section more easily digested by the 
reader, and a more functional reference for customers and ARIN staff 
during experimental allocation requests.


Policy statement:

Section 11 Overview

Current text:

11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary 
Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of 
recognized experimental activity.


"Numbering Resources" refers to unicast IPv4 or IPv6 address space and 
Autonomous System numbers.

The following are the criteria for this policy:

Proposed text:

11. Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

ARIN will allocate Number Resources to organizations requiring 
temporary Number Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms 
of a recognized experimental activity.


Section 11.1

Current text:

11.1. Documentation of Recognized Experimental Activity

A Recognized Experimental Activity is one where the experiment's 
objectives and practices are described in a publicly accessible 
document. It is a normal requirement that a Recognized Experimental 
Activity also includes the undertaking that the experiment's outcomes 
be published in a publicly accessible document at the end of the 
experiment. The conditions for determining the end of the experiment 
are to be included in the document. Applicants for an experimental 
allocation are expected to demonstrate an understanding that when the 
experiment ends, the allocation will be returned; a successful 
experiment may need a new allocation under normal policies in order to 
continue in production or commercial use, but will not retain the 
experimental allocation.


A "publicly accessible document" is a document that is publicly and 
openly available free of charges and free of any constraints of 
disclosure.


ARIN will not recognize an experimental activity under this policy if 
the entire research experiment cannot be publicly disclosed.


ARIN has a strong preference for the recognition of experimental 
activity documentation in the form of a document which has been 
approved for publication by the IESG or by a similar mechanism as 
implemented by the IETF.


Proposed text:

11.1. Eligibility Criteria for Recognized Experimental Activity

The eligibility criteria for a recognized experimental activity under 
this policy are:


  * The experiment’s description and objectives are published in a
publicly accessible document, which for the purpose of this policy
means that the document is readily available free of charges to
the public, and free of any constraints of disclosure within one
year after the end of the experiment;
  * The experiment’s outcomes must also be published in a publicly
accessible policy;
  * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is
technically sound within the meaning of ARIN’s Policy Development
Process;
  * Demonstration to ARIN that the experimental activity is
technically coordinated in that consideration of any potential
negative impact of the proposed experiment on the operation of the
Internet and its deployed services has been considered, and a
description of experimenter mitigation plans to