RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Titley [mailto:nigel@titley.com]
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 07:11, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
At 06:00 AM 6/12/2002, Geoff Huston wrote:
However, the distinction between "ALLOCATED" and "ASSIGNED" is perhaps a bit subtle.
When these attributes were created, those particular words were in deemed both descriptive and clear. Maybe the language concerned has shifted underneath in the meantime ;-). As a native speaker of one of its dialects, would you make a suggestion for improvement?
Well actually as a native speaker of (another) of its dialects, I've never considered the distinction of ALLOCATED and ASSIGNED to be other than subtle. I'd much prefer DELEGATED and ASSIGNED or some such. This may be a matter of taste however.
I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses. Just my two pence... Regards, Guy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.1 iQA/AwUBPQca4I3dwu/Ss2PCEQJv6ACeMa1ZbnoN3P7r6VaBANGPa1yXN9UAoMLQ cJpgKn6FvDPmyD1X02WLXJF3 =yl1x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify us by telephone and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. We use reasonable endeavors to virus scan all e-mails leaving the Company but no warranty is given that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor e-mail communications through our network is reserved by us.
At 11:56 AM 6/12/2002, Guy Davies wrote:
I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses.
This is an excellent idea. However I would use ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. That way we clarify the subtle difference while maintaining consistency with existing documentation. (If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time, but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which is not quite the case.) Daniel
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 11:15, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
At 11:56 AM 6/12/2002, Guy Davies wrote:
I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses.
This is an excellent idea. However I would use ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. That way we clarify the subtle difference while maintaining consistency with existing documentation.
I'd be happy with this too. Mind you, it goes against the usual principle of introduce-confusing-jargon-in-order-to-ensure-job-security.
(If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time, but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which is not quite the case.)
Well, a delegation can be withdrawn, and surely people aren't sufficiently stupid to confuse DNS delegation and address delegation.... However, I'm quite happy to agree with the consensus in this case.
Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> writes:
This is an excellent idea. However I would use ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. That way we clarify the subtle difference while maintaining consistency with existing documentation.
This is still missing a status for allocations done by LIRs to someone who is neither LIR nor end user ("NLA"). Robert
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 13:00, Robert Kiessling wrote:
Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> writes:
This is an excellent idea. However I would use ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. That way we clarify the subtle difference while maintaining consistency with existing documentation.
This is still missing a status for allocations done by LIRs to someone
Don't you mean assignments? :-)
who is neither LIR nor end user ("NLA").
Examples? (I'm probably just being stupid)
On 12 Jun 2002, Nigel Titley wrote:
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 13:00, Robert Kiessling wrote:
Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> writes:
This is an excellent idea. However I would use ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. That way we clarify the subtle difference while maintaining consistency with existing documentation.
This is still missing a status for allocations done by LIRs to someone
Don't you mean assignments? :-)
who is neither LIR nor end user ("NLA").
Examples? (I'm probably just being stupid)
Small ISP which has neither resources or the need to be a LIR. (One that might need, say, /40 with HD80%) -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> writes:
This is still missing a status for allocations done by LIRs to someone
Don't you mean assignments? :-)
No.
who is neither LIR nor end user ("NLA").
Examples? (I'm probably just being stupid)
5.3 of the 2002-04-25 draft: "LIR-to-ISP allocation". LIRs are free to suballocate the allocation they got from a RIR. Such a suballocation is neither an assignment nor a RIR-allocation, so should get a separate status attribute (as found in the original proposal). Robert
I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses.
For me these two phrases, DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER, hit the spot precisely! excellent suggestion Guy! Is it appropriate to request consideration of these terms as replacements for ASSIGNED and ALLOCATED? Geoff
Geoff, On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:02:52PM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses.
For me these two phrases, DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER, hit the spot precisely!
excellent suggestion Guy!
Is it appropriate to request consideration of these terms as replacements for ASSIGNED and ALLOCATED?
I would like to second such a request. ASSIGNED and ALLOCATED seem to be confusing terms, even for the professionals in this business. David K. ---
Hi Geoff,
For me these two phrases, DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER, hit the spot precisely!
excellent suggestion Guy!
Is it appropriate to request consideration of these terms as replacements for ASSIGNED and ALLOCATED?
The terms in the database in connection with this attribute are used to reflect the existing policy environment. If you wish to change the terms, then the appropriate place to do that (in the AP region) is the Address Policy SIG. You are very welcome to make a proposal there. cheers, Anne --
Hi Geoff and all, (speaking for APNIC here) While policy changes are always possible, I'd like to point out that the terms "Allocation" and "Assignment" are well defined within the APNIC policy framework, and those definitions reflect meanings which have been fairly well agreed for some time (at least since the publication of RFC2050). The terms are very widely used throughout APNIC policy, training and other documentation, and in a manner which is consistent with the definitions. As for "Delegation", this term is used more loosely in various documents, and as a general term for transferring responsibility for address space, through *either* allocation or assignment. We sometimes use the word "distribution" with the same meaning. You can see RFC2050 for examples of both. Dictionary definitions are interesting, and while I would like as much consistency as possible with them, I'd also argue that these terms now have a life of their own and a legitimacy within our own specific context. Unless there is a very good reason to replace the term "allocate" with "delegate" as proposed, we should bear in mind that the cost of making this change would be very substantial, and may well outweigh the benefits. Regards, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
-----Original Message----- From: owner-apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net [mailto:owner-apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 10:03 PM To: Guy Davies; 'Nigel Titley'; Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Anne Lord; Joao Luis Silva Damas; ipv6-wg@ripe.net; lir-wg@ripe.net; db-wg@ripe.net; sig-db@lists.apnic.net; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses.
For me these two phrases, DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER, hit the spot precisely!
excellent suggestion Guy!
Is it appropriate to request consideration of these terms as replacements for ASSIGNED and ALLOCATED?
Geoff
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request@apnic.net *
participants (8)
-
Anne Lord -
Daniel Karrenberg -
David Kessens -
Geoff Huston -
Guy Davies -
Nigel Titley -
Paul Wilson -
Pekka Savola -
Robert Kiessling