[162745] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Apr 30 23:21:34 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbWDtW13ovDhO8bRKnSqr4Q79t5CVkqwsupumTRO8m2-oA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:18:51 -0700
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>,
"nanog@nanog.org Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> This says demonstrate the need for resources.
> The "under current policies" bit is redundant, because the transfer =
policy
> is referring to itself. Of course the current policies always apply; =
so
> this is some strange infinitely recursive oddity.
>=20
Jimmy,
With all due respect, this is a reference in section 8.3 to call out =
that
the policies in section 4 regarding qualification of recipients are to =
be
followed when determining eligibility for an 8.3 transfer.
This is understood by the AC and by ARIN staff. I believe it is also =
well
understood by the majority of the community.
I would be happy to submit clarifying text as an editorial amendment if
you feel it would be helpful.
I would suggest that considering the expressed intent of the policy is =
more
useful than attempting to nit-pick the most nonsensical possible =
interpretations
of the particular wording.
> It doesn't say the qualifications and requirements will be the same as =
if
> the transfer request was a request for a /20 allocation from the free =
pool,
> or as if the transfer were an assignment (things that it is not); only =
that
> the transfer policy asserts the requirement to demonstrate need,
>=20
That is the express intent of that clause in the rationale and according =
to
the authors during discussions of the policy text prior to its adoption.
Further, it is (correctly, IMHO), the ARIN staff interpretation of the =
policy.
> As long as the need can be demonstrated as explained in 4.1, then any
> 8.3 transfer should be approved, even if the criteria given in 4.2 for
> initial allocations are not met.
4.1 provides only general principles. In and of itself it is not a =
complete set
of policies. In addition to the guidance provided by 4.1, one must =
qualify
under 4.2 if one is an ISP/LIR or 4.3 if one is an end-user. There are =
exceptions
provided in 4.4 et. seq. for certain special cases.
> Since there is not yet a policy there that addresses or places =
specific
> requirements for need determination for transferred resources, =
as-opposed
> to allocation requests
The text in section 8.3 effectively incorporates 4.2 et. seq. by =
reference,
whether you like that fact or not.
> The initial allocation rule should not be getting applied to 8.3 =
transfers
> in any case...
IMHO, your interpretation is contrary to the text and the intent of NRPM =
8.3.
It appears that staff agrees with me. The proposal that later became 8.3 =
was
discussed in the community as it is currently interpreted by staff. At =
no point
prior to your current objection was anything like your intended =
interpretation
ever expressed as a viable outcome of the text in question.
Owen
