[address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Version and Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Version and Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Version and Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Wed Feb 9 18:09:40 CET 2011
Hi, On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 04:50:20PM +0100, Erik Bais wrote: > > - you're in favour of the general principle, want some details changed, > > but agree to pospone that to the next round of certificate-related > > proposals (like "this proposal does not cover PI" - yes, we know, the > > plan was to "start with the easy bits = PA"). > > Why is it stated : > > > This proposal only applies to IPv4 ALLOCATED PA blocks that were issued by > the RIPE NCC and excludes early registration and legacy space, as well as > > blocks marked as ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED or ALLOCATED PI. As I said: "start with the easy bits". *This* proposal is "start with PA" (because the CA TF though that it would be easier to start with just a subset). When we get this done, the CA-TF - or anyone else who wants to driver this forward - can do another one for PI and/or ERX space. [..] > And to make things probably worse for the discussion, I would think that > having the LIR manage this on behalf of their PI customers, might not be a > bad idea, also because the location of the online certification site is in > the LIR portal and this could be seen as one of the tasks a LIR does on > behalf for their customers. > PI LIR customers that doesn't want their specific LIR to deal with their > certification process, could either change LIR or change to a Direct > Assignment End-User, but I'm guessing that would be a very small group of > all PI customers. This sounds like a good rationale why we didn't cover PI in this initial proposal - more thought is needed. So please don't drag this specific thread into "how to do it with PI?" land, but focus on *this* proposal "do certificates for PA, or not?" > If the CA-TF isn't planning to change the policy to include ALLOCATED PI, is > there a set time-frame on when this will be proposed / implemented ? You're welcome to propose a parallel proposal for PI right away - but I think process-wise it would be easier to wait for a decision on this one, and then base the next on it. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110209/068e5864/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Version and Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Version and Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]