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

There was discussion on this topic during the meeting (and prior to the meeting, from ARIN staff here on list), with the guidance being that the “shall” being proposed here would be enforced similarly to every other occurrence of “shall” as it appears in the NRPM; it becomes part of the RSA

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

Hi Albert, You would also have noticed that almost everyone seemed fine with "should" as a fallback position if the use of "shall" would pose a delay to general acceptance. If I were to guess, "should" would go through and a discussion would be started regarding how to enforce a "shall" in a

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

I noticed at ARIN40, that "shall" had more votes, and zero "no" votes, as compared to "should". Just wondering, what happens/will happen next? Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because

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] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

, September 29, 2017 8:31 AM To: Owen DeLong; Jason Schiller Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements [External Email] Shall is not minor. Ask ARIN legal counsel if there is a big or small difference between should

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

[mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 10:13 AM To: Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements On Sep 29, 2017, at 8:58 AM,

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

ct: 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. Official

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

d be far worse. > > > > Out of curiosity, how often has ARIN had to deal with SWIP issues like this, > where the other party ignored you? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kevin Blumberg > > > > > > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bou

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

see “should” and “shall” being >> considered an editorial change. To extend the policy cycle to another >> meeting would be far worse. >> >> >> >> Out of curiosity, how often has ARIN had to deal with SWIP issues like >> this, where the other party ignored

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

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

, 2017 11:46 AM To: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>; Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements I support the policy as written. If the stick isn’t big enoug

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

> From: Chris Woodfield [mailto:ch...@semihuman.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 1:21 PM > To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>; arin-ppml@arin.net > Cc: Kevin Blumberg <kev...@thewire.ca> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved I

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

t: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements I agree with Owen’s assessment. If there is sufficient community support for changing the phrase to “shall” at the PPM - I’d define “sufficient community support” as a show of hands on that specific

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

n...@arin.net >> <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] On Behalf Of John Curran >> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM >> To: Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com <mailto:jschil...@google.com>> >> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml

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

On Behalf Of *John > Curran > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM > *To:* Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com> > *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved > IPv6 Registration Requirements > > >

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

ith SWIP issues like > this, where the other party ignored you? > > Thanks, > > Kevin Blumberg > > > *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net > <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] *On Behalf Of *John Curran > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM > *

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

Given this, I personally think that shall is the better choice of wording for 6.5.5.4. Owen > On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:59 PM, John Curran wrote: > > On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller > wrote: >> >> I oppose as

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

[mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM To: Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements On 26 Sep 2017, at 3

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

I support with either shall or should. Shall is perferred. Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Scott Leibrand wrote: I support this policy proposal with "should" and would also support it with "shall". I don't think it's a big deal either way.

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

I support this policy proposal with "should" and would also support it with "shall". I don't think it's a big deal either way. -Scott On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > John, > > Thanks. > > My intention was to make 6.5.5.4 not be any less required

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

I oppose as written. I support Jason's language of replacing "should" with "shall" in 6.5.5.4. James ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage

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

On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller > wrote: I oppose as written. There should not be a different standard of requirement for: - re-allocation - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses - subdelegation of any size that will be

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

er 26, 2017 11:18 AM > *To:* ARIN > *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved > IPv6 Registration Requirements > > > > [External Email] > > I oppose as written. > > > > There should not

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

] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 11:18 AM To: ARIN Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements [External Email] I oppose as written. There should not be a different standard of r

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

Support RDP ARIN 2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements as written. -- Brian Jones On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:37 PM Scott Leibrand wrote: > +1 > > I support RDP ARIN-2017-5 as written. > > -Scott > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:31 AM, ARIN wrote:

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

I oppose as written. There should not be a different standard of requirement for: - re-allocation - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses - subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced which is "shall" and Registration Requested by Recipient which is "should" I

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

current policy: 6.5.5.1. Reassignment information Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /64 or more addresses shall be registered in the WHOIS directory via SWIP or a distributed service which meets the standards set forth in section 3.2. Reassignment registrations shall include each client's

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

Support as written. Great work everyone on this! -C > On Sep 26, 2017, at 10:31 AM, ARIN wrote: > > On 21 September 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration

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

+1 I support RDP ARIN-2017-5 as written. -Scott On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:31 AM, ARIN wrote: > On 21 September 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the > following Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration

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

On 21 September 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at: