[address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Fri Sep 7 09:08:05 CEST 2012
* Milton L Mueller >> -----Original Message----- Let's say I want to transfer an >> allocation to another LIR, and want the fact that I've been dealing >> with said LIR to remain a secret until the deal is done. If the >> deal falls through due to the failure of the recipient LIR to >> justify their need for the transferred resource, I don't want the >> fact I was in negotiations to transfer away 192.0.2.0/24 to become >> public knowledge. > > OK, this is a valid concern, imho. I would propose to modify the > language such that statistical aggregates are published rather than > individual blocks. Thanks - that would resolve my objection to the proposal. >> Also, if the goal of the identification is to combat discrimination >> in need assessment, isn't it the *receiving* LIR that should be >> identified? > > Correct. Would you object if they were? Would others? I would. I feel that neither the source nor the recipient of a failed transfer should be named. This extends to the address block itself (from which it would have been trivial to figure out the source.) In summary, my position is that: * Source/dest/prefix for successful transfers should definitively be made public. * Aggregate statistical data both for failed and successful transfers is «nice to have». * Information that identifies the specific parties or resources associated with a failed transaction should *not* be made public. >> So yes indeed, <RIPE[sic] could easily make this accessible to all >> with a few keystrokes>. They have stated a willingness to do so, >> too. So why do we need to change policy, exactly? The PDP is a slow >> process. It seems to me that it is faster to just ask the NCC to >> start publishing the desired information. If they refuse to do so, >> then let's look into compelling them through policy. > > Valid points! But on the other hand if we ask them to do it and they > don't, then the process becomes even slower, doesn't it? I would > prefer to go ahead with the policy change, but as you suggest remove > the stuff about failed needs assessments, turn that into a request > from RIPE for aggregate statistics. > > Are we in agreement on that? If so, I will propose a specific > modification of the proposal Agreed. I would not object to such a proposal. That said, I won't guarantee that I will come out and explicitly support it either (at least not until I've seen you simply ask the NCC to publish the desired data and been refused), but I promise I won't stand in your way. (I think services-wg would be the right place to ask the NCC for the data, by the way.) Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]