"It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
owen at delong.com
Wed May 1 03:18:51 UTC 2013
>> 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.
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,
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.
More information about the NANOG