[address-policy-wg] 2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Proposal Accepted (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Kessens
david.kessens at nsn.com
Thu Oct 23 23:41:29 CEST 2008
Shane, On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:30:10PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 17:41 +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > > > >> Let's keep things simple please! > > > > > > Indeed, but I guess you would not recommend to "simply" change a > > > formally adopted policy document, would you? This could be seen as > > > a nasty precedent... > > > > > > You have a point there and it we might call it an oversight in the PDP > > to not be able to handle small changes in formatting or typos without > > going through the whole process again. So for the sake of it all, > > let's adopt this change using the current proces and focus the > > discussion on how to handle such changes in the future. I don't expect > > it to happen much, but the way you put it a small cosmetic error can > > result in going over a lenghty discussion again and might be a tool to > > bend things differently by the need to reach consensus again. > > I agree. > > Right now there *is* no other way to change policies, right? I found > Thomas' comment a bit strange - like asking the IETF to create a > standard without an Internet draft. > > But he does have a point that the PDP may be heavyweight in cases like > this. So you are right, lets tweak the PDP. :) I don't think Thomas comments were strange at all. It is complete overkill to use the policy process to deal with *conventions* on how to write down a particular resource. However, it was explained quite well why we encountered this problem and it seems reasonable to use a policy proposal to get around it. However, the new proposal again creates a dependancy on a particular format instead of leaving the format out of the policy. If the proposal would read like (new text): 1.9 4-byte AS Numbers . . . Terminology "2-byte only AS Numbers" refers to AS Numbers in the range 0 - 65535 "4-byte only AS Numbers" refers to AS Numbers in the range 65536 - 4294967295 "4-byte AS Numbers" refers to AS Numbers in the range 0 - 4294967295 we would not refer to any particular format and we can just proceed whether the IETF is ready to approve ASPLAIN format or not. Also, I noticed that it is kind of strange that the policy document has no reference whatsoever to the IETF document that actually defines 4-octet AS numbers. Note that IETF uses 'octet' in their terminology, while the policy document uses the word 'byte'. Personally, I don't particularly care but it might be more consistant to use the same terminology. David Kessens ---
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Proposal Accepted (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]