Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

Without a doubt the words "should" and "shall" are very different words from a legal standpoint. Should can be understood as "may" while shall can be understood as "must". The difference between permission and obligation is night and day in a legal context. Out of curiosity I took a look

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

Oops, in my list of cases where the existing wording does not make it optional (in my previous reply), I left out "the prefix is being separately routed". On 9/29/2017 2:25 PM, David Farmer wrote: I will note the standard will not universally be "should", if the reason the endusers wants the

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

+1 I would also prefer "shall" to "should", but the current text is acceptable to me. The "should", as I read it, only applies when downstream customers who have an assignments of /48 or longer request to be SWIPed by their upstream provider.  If their assignment is a /47 or more, or if it

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

I will note the standard will not universally be "should", if the reason the endusers wants the prefix registered is they were given permission to route it, or its shorter than /47, then the standard will be "shall", because of the clauses in 6.5.5.1. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Jason

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2017-5

customer contacts them and explains that their > ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them? > > Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell > them they "should" SWIP it? > > Jason - > >If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that ha

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

Thanks for the feedback, everybody. I've captured these thoughts into the slide deck that I'll be presenting during the meeting. Definitely looking forward to the lively discussion next week. Leif From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Winters Sent: Friday,

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

Shall is not minor. Ask ARIN legal counsel if there is a big or small difference between should and shall. Additionally, if you are going to say shall, what happens if there is non-compliance? You should define the consequences if you want to say shall. Thanks, Mike From: ARIN-PPML

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

If you are going to change it to shall, then you also need to define the consequences of non-compliance. From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 9:59 AM To: David Farmer Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re:

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

+1 On 17-09-29 06:58 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: David, Kevin, Alison I am actually comfortable with an implementation that is short of revocation, but I am still not comfortable with "should". Should makes it optional.  Officially not being out of compliance with ARIN policy makes it

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

> On Sep 29, 2017, at 8:58 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > > David, Kevin, Alison > > I am actually comfortable with an implementation that is short of revocation, > but I am still not comfortable with "should". > > Should makes it optional. Officially not being out of

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

David, Kevin, Alison I am actually comfortable with an implementation that is short of revocation, but I am still not comfortable with "should". Should makes it optional. Officially not being out of compliance with ARIN policy makes it optional. I suggest that an ISP refusing to register a

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

As the author of the original proposal, I do want to see the main part of this proposal advance and be passed. Since it has now been pointed out that the language is currently frozen until the meeting, I note for the record that I have no problem with the draft as currently written, and would

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

On 28 Sep 2017, at 11:59 PM, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: Hello All, I just wanted to mention some procedural points to consider in this discussion and thank you all for contributing to this debate. It does provide helpful