Bill –
I think this is a valid point, though I do think both proposals are
appropriate. The goals of 2024-4 and 5 are different, but the first bullet
point in 2024-5 is fundamentally an IX definition. The other bullet points
represent qualification criteria relevant to the allocation being considered.
It makes sense to be written this way now because there is no IX definition in
policy yet or until 2024-4 is completed.
One way to address this is to keep them moving together and in consideration of
one another – 2024-5 relies on the 2024-4 definition and, if it is clear it
will become adopted policy, 2024-5 references the new definition as part of the
criteria rather than restate it.
Hope that helps –
Doug
--
Douglas J. Camin
ARIN Advisory Council
d...@dougcamin.com
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> on behalf of Bill Woodcock
<wo...@pch.net>
Date: Friday, May 24, 2024 at 3:22 AM
To: arin-ppml <arin-ppml@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4
Micro-Allocation
This should be pointing out the obvious, but we need _either_ 2024-4 _or_
2024-5, but _definitely not both_. That would be bad, having two different
definitions that had to be kept synchronized.
I support having a stand-alone definition as in 2024-4, and removing all
descriptive language from other uses of the phrase “Internet exchange” or “IX."
-Bill
_______________________________________________
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.
