[address-policy-wg] 2014-10 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region")
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-10 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in âIPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Regionâ)
- Next message (by thread): 2014-11 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification for âAllocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCCâ)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu Oct 23 23:29:08 CEST 2014
On 23/10/2014 21:03, Peter Koch wrote: > 1) the motivating pointer to RFC 2119 is misguided. RIPE documents do not > make a reference to RFC 2119 in general and even less so in this particular > case. There's already enough confusion in the IETF with "must" > vs "MUST", i.e., when keywords do and don't bear their special meaning. The proposal does not draw a distinction between "must" and "MUST". RIPE documents can start referencing 2119 today, if they want. > 2) the change is unnecessary and does not provide clarification. > The text is already clearly stating that assigned address space stays > with the service and will (have to) be returned to the RIPE NCC if > the service is terminated. A "should" is sufficient. "should" means: "really ought to, but if not then whatevs", which is not the intention of the policy. Probably the RIPE NCC would implement this "must" if there were a new request, so clarification of intent is not a bad idea. > 3) The status of ripe-233, especially in the light of the omnibus document > ripe-623 is probably a bit vague. ripe-233 applies solely to ipv6 space; ripe-623 applies to ipv4 space. It's not clear why this is relevant either. > ripe-233 exists for historic reference, > therefore any change applied by this proposal would retroactively try > to change the rule for past assignments with no new assignments to be > expected (for lack of policy). ripe-233 / successor exist not just for historic reference, but may apply to future assignments if there are reassignments of root servers in the future. The future is a long time. Re: retroactive changes, are there any ipv6 assignments made to root servers which use the ipv6 addresses for other purposes? I.e. is the RIPE community asking that actual behaviour be changed? > 4) Issuing a new document with a new timestamp is likely to cause more > confusion than it strives to solve (lacking sth equivalent to a > "Historic" document status and/or explanatory introductory text > in the updated document). This seems to be an argument that policy updates shouldn't happen because they might confuse people. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-10 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in âIPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Regionâ)
- Next message (by thread): 2014-11 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification for âAllocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCCâ)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]