On Aug 15, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > as a reader of this thread with any memory can clearly see, when i asked > about a change to the lrsa (with which you clearly disagree), i was told > to submit a suggestion and to go through the policy process. > > when you want a change to the same agreement, whammy, it can magically > be done with a quick internal process.
Randy - I understand your confusion. If you find a typo, or grammatical error, or phrase which is contradictory, I can fix it the next version. If you have a suggestion for LRSA content change, please use the suggestion process or take it up at a meeting as you prefer. For the particular change that you want, I was noting that NRPM 4.1 (not 6.4.1 as I wrote) specifically cites RFC 2050: > 4.1.7. RFC 2050 > > ARIN takes guidance from allocation and assignment policies and procedures > set forth in RFC 2050. These guidelines were developed to meet the needs of > the larger Internet community in conserving scarce IPv4 address space and > allowing continued use of existing Internet routing technologies. and as a result, you should look to the IETF to update the RFC2050 guidance or the Policy Development process to remove the reference. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ---- Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> > Date: August 15, 2010 6:49:12 AM EDT > To: Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> > Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses > > On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> >>>> gosh, i must have completely misread section nine >>> Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150? >> >> oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the >> lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just remove it. > > Easy to do, you can either: > > 1) Change the appropriate policy language (NRPM 6.4.1) via the ARIN policy > development process, in which case the LRSA will be updated as noted, or > > 2) If you feel that you'd prefer a different forum, you can address this on a > > more global basis (since each RIR has similar language regarding addresses) > by going through the IETF and revising the RFCs, which will likely result > in the RIRs all reviewing their documents accordingly. > > Either route requires that the community comes to a consensus on the change > and can give you the results you seek. Or you can enjoy the status quo. > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > p.s. If you want to continue to discuss, can we shortly move this to PPML > or ARIN-Discuss for the sake of those not interested in these matters > who have different expectations from their NANOG list subscription? >
