Lightly used IP addresses

Mon Aug 16 03:30:54 UTC 2010

On Aug 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 EDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain rights
>> somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in nature and
>> contrary to the intent of number stewardship all the way back to
>> Postel's original notebook. Postel himself is on record stating that
>> disused addresses should be returned.
> 
> We've written RFCs that explain SHOULD != MUST.
> 
> Keep in mind that he said that back in a long-bygone era where sending an
> e-mail asking "If you're not going to deploy that address range, can you give
> it back just because it's the Right Thing To Do, even though there's a chance
> that 15 years from now, you'll be able to sell it for megabucks" didn't get 53
> levels of management and lawyers involved.
> 
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:33:34 EDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> A contract which clarifies that you still don't have rights you never
>> had does not constitute relinquishing those non-existent rights no
>> matter how many times you repeat yourself.
> 
> Ahh - but here's the kicker.  For the contract to clarify the status of that
> right, it *is* admitting that the right exists and has a definition (even if
> not spelled out in the contract).  A non-existent thing can't be the subject
> of a contract negotiation.  So in the contract, you can agree that you don't
> have right XYZ, and clarify that you understand you never had right XYZ.
> But it doesn't make sense if XYZ is nonexistent.
> 
There are lots of contracts which clarify that inaccuracies previously perceived
as rights are, indeed, and always were, fictitious in nature. That is possible
in a contract and is not as uncommon as one would wish it were.

It does not magically lend credence to the prior fiction.

Owen