Skip to main content

You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.


RIPE NCC Services Working Group

Draft Minutes
Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 16:00-17:30
Co-Chair: Kurtis Lindquist
Scribe: Amanda Gowland

A. Administrative Matters [5 min]

  • Welcome
  • Select a scribe
  • Finalise agenda
  • Approve minutes from RIPE 71

WG Chair Kurtis Lindqvist opened the session (“everyone's favourite WG”) with a preview of the session's agenda and thanked the scribe.

Kurtis asked for approval on the RIPE 71 draft minutes. There were no comments and the minutes were approved.

B. RIPE NCC Survey 2016 [10 min] - Serge Radovcic

The presentation is available at:

There were no questions.

C. RIPE NCC Report on Outreach [15 min] - Paul Rendek

The presentation is available at:

Nurani Nimpuno, Netnod, commented she appreciated the focus on regional issues and added that the complex European regulatory environment is hard to keep up with. She noted that ISOC publishes a quick update but wondered if Paul had any pointers or thoughts on doing summaries on what's happening for operators in Europe.

Paul commented it was a great suggestion and said it's more important now than it has been before. The new Internet governance space is concentrated on regulation legislation and they should look at things that are relevant for the RIPE NCC's business.

Mirjam Kuehne commented that there's an interesting session at 9am Friday with a panel discussion with representatives from the various regions in the community.

Milton Mueller, ARIN, commented that there were concerns about the public safety working group because they organised themselves not as a multistakeholder committee within the gamut of ICANN stakeholders but as a subcommittee within the GAC which means they can keep what they discuss within GAC even though what they discuss affects a wider group. He also commented that there was overemphasise on the so-called threat to multistakeholderism within government institutions because the bigger threat comes from within multistakeholder institutions when governments act within them in ways less democratically accountable than when they act as governments. He added that ARIN discussed forming a GAC and the idea was rejected. He said he was not sure how the RIPE NCC was handling its relationship to government but hoped they would maintain the porous boundaries between governments and stakeholders and not become insulated.

Paul replied that he was introducing the “Public Safety Working Group” for the first time during this presentation from the RIPE NCC's perspective. He added that they also had concerns about their makeup and that it was an arm inside of GAC. He said the RIPE NCC was engaging with them and wanted to understand what their agenda was. The RIPE NCC has participated in two PSWG meetings, one was a meeting co-hosted by DG Connect and DG Home. The second meeting was held at ICANN and was open and he co-chaired the session. Paul added that when we understand their agenda, we're going to be able to bring that back to the community because IP Whois will be a big topic going forward.

Daniel Karrenberg, commented as a RIPE community member that it's worthwhile to think about whether RIPE and the RIPE NCC want to engage within that framework or engage on the IP Whois with the contacts already established. Concerning the phrase “the Internet of things”, Daniel commented that he interpreted that Paul was signalling that it was the newest fad and that governments are interested on what the RIPE NCC thinks about it. He said he missed what the RIPE NCC planned to do about it because it was evident that the RIPE NCC is nothing but RIPE's secretariat in this matter. He wondered if the RIPE community had thoughts on this.

Paul replied that IoT means to a lot to government and that the ITU wants to be recognised as a body for standards development. He added that it needed to be looked at further and maybe the RIPE NCC could guide them into the direction of the RIPE community. He added that the RIPE NCC has been following IoT developments for six-to-eight months to find out what people are talking about and what our position would be there, certainly the topic of critical Internet resources is of relevance to the RIPE NCC. Paul added that a document on our position on IoT would be shared with the community and he'd be interested in seeing more presentations on IoT at future RIPE meetings. He added that the RIPE NCC External Relations team would present about it at RIPE 73.

There were no further questions.

Kurtis reminded the audience that this working group was created in order for members to give comments and feedback on what the RIPE NCC does.

D. RIPE NCC Outreach/Communication as Work of Community Secretariat [10 min] - Alexander Isavnin

The presentation is available at:

Hans Petter Holen, RIPE Chair, summarised that the RIPE NCC Executive Board answered Alexander's questions with content from the RIPE NCC Activity Plan. He added that the RIPE NCC Activity Plan and the RIPE NCC Annual Report states what the RIPE NCC is supposed to do for the next year and if that is not satisfactory to members who elect the board and direct the organisation, they should make sure what they want is in the activity plan. He added that there's been a lot of discussion in past years about what the RIPE NCC should and shouldn't do. He added that the board would like to hear positive suggestions on what they could do better in the regions but wasn't sure an outreach policy was needed. That is a question for the RIPE NCC and not the RIPE community.

Alex asked how would success be measured on outreach activities.

Dmitry Kohmanyuk, speaking as an Internet citizen, said that a lot of people attend ENOG and most people that are LIRs read the fine print. He said he didn't think they should make any region or country privileged, everyone is equal. He added that if Alex thinks localised translations are needed then maybe the RIPE NCC staff based in Moscow could help with that. He commented that the RIPE NCC already sends out RIPE policy announcements in Russian. Small steps and keep it simple.

Alex replied he gave Russian as an example because he lives there and that it's one of the main languages in the region.

Dmitry replied that in that case, maybe we should translate to German as well.

Maxim Burtikov, RIPE NCC, said that the Internet ombudsman in Russia never said (that the RIPE NCC sold IP addresses) because he was at the event and he (Maxim) asked him if he thought that he was buying addresses from the RIPE NCC and he said no and asked who said that. He added that with Russian legislation you have to have a buying agreement to get services from a foreign company. He added that if Alexander was unsatisfied with the Russian Minister of Communications disagreeing with him then he shouldn't have skipped the Georgian, Armenian or Kazakhstan events that the RIPE NCC hosted because each of them had the head of the regulatory body or a vice minister or minister coming to greet the RIPE NCC.

Maxim added that the RIPE NCC has covered 15 countries in the region and will have events in three more countries in Q3 this year. Member lunches were introduced as a specific outreach programme because they understood that ENOG couldn't cover the entire region. RIPE NCC Regional Meetings that happen twice a year cannot cover the entire region so that's why they needed to introduce something smaller and lighter to reach members that have never met the RIPE NCC. He said there were dozens of events across the region and they were all very successful and resulting in three new IGFs in Belarus, Georgia and Central Asia. He added that these were all examples of outreach continuation in the region together with partners like ISOC.

Regarding the PDP and Alexander's point that no one knows about it, Maxim said that the slides that Marco Schmidt presented in the morning showed that Russia is the third most active country in PDP engagement after the UK and Germany. Maxim said the RIPE NCC is doing a lot of things to help people in the region understand what's happening in the PDP, including the Russian PDP update that Dmitry mentioned. Maxim added that he knows there's still a gap because you have to write in English to participate in the PDP but that it's improving. He added that he didn't know where Alexander was getting his information about Russian participation in the GM since he saw the map that showed active Russian participation.

Alexander replied that KPIs should be introduced and that he's compared the maps on the previous GMs and it's been three registrations for this GM and the last one so people just got a free lunch.

Maxim replied that the member lunches weren't about getting members registered for the GM.

Alexander replied that it can be measured and it seems that outreach and communication is there for the sake of it and not for the community. He asked if lunches resulted in increased involvement. He commented that he had to give a one-hour talk with an Internet business ombudsman to explain about the RIPE NCC and its history and that is the job of Axel Pawlik. He added that, with regards to KPIs, it's important to measure it because if the RIPE NCC doesn't work with its membership and get really involved it could appear that a lot of new members join to get a /22 to sell it and those LIRs would outnumber the real working LIRs.

Kurtis asked that the conversation be taken to the mailing list because of time restraints. He added that discussions about members is important for this working group but that the GM had to start on time.

E. RIPE NCC Update [20 min] - Axel Pawlik

The presentation is available at:

Elvis Velea, v4Escrow LLC, asked if it was possible for the RIPE NCC to make an easy-to-use downloadable PDF of RPKI certificates.

Ruediger Volk, Deutsche Telekom Technikdier, commented that tools do exist but they aren't easy to use.

Tim Bruinzeels, RIPE NCC, commented that there weren't any tools provided by the RIPE NCC to print downloadable RPKI certificates but it could be discussed if there was a significant interest in it.

There were no further questions.

F. IETF Endowment Update [10 min] - Sean Turner, IETF

The presentation is available at:

Erik Bais repeated question he posed at last GM about what the IETF would offer this community in terms of fixing BGP communities for 32 bit ASNs. He said they wanted something in return for their support.

Jari replied that he wasn't working on that particular topic but would be happy to discuss further. It was something the technical WGs decided, not management.

Erik said he strongly suggested that if members vote with money to get involved in this particular topic because it was very relevant for the RIPE community.

Ruediger Volk commented that it was a very strange approach, what contribution should the IDR come in if it was delivered. He added that essential, crucial problems are only addressed in a very delayed way and those failures needed to be identified.

Jari said that they gladly take on board criticism and feedback and get comments on the IETF mailing list on what is going right or wrong.

Hans Petter Holen commented that it was a great initiative, the IETF needs funding. He added that he's been ISOC member since 90-something and is happy to pay membership fees to ensure the IETF has funding and he encouraged funding from the community and then to leave it to RIPE NCC Executive Board to figure out how the RIPE NCC can contribute in a substantial way. He added that the IETF created IPv4 and we wouldn't be here without it.

An attendee that introduced himself as an IETF contributor said he didn't think there was a need for payback because the payback we are giving is maintaining Internet standards that the IETF is using so he hoped that funding would be something that supports the IETF's work. He added that he'd be happy to see more of the RIPE community at IETF meetings and raising the voice to tell the IETF what is needed.

Jari added that RIPE NCC people and the CIDR Working Group are active.

Nigel Titley, Chairman of the Board, commented that he would appreciate guidance about this from the members.

Kurtis asked how this would happen.

Nigel said they are many ways and he mentions these at every GM. You can talk to a member of the board in person, send an email, post to the members-discuss mailing list, etc.

Kurtis emphasised that feedback was needed no matter what method.

G. 2016-02, “Resource Authentication Key (RAK) Code for Third Party Authentication [15 min] - Erik Bais

The presentation is available at:

Kurtis asked if there would be a high-level diagram explaining it because people were asking for it on the mailing list and didn't see a response.

Erik said there should be a discussion on how to move forward first before implementation is discussed.

Elvis commented that he supported the proposal and asked if he discussed it with any of the third-party IRRs.

Erik replied that they did and they spoke to NTT as well.

Elvis asked if they wanted to implement something connecting to the RIPE NCC.

Erik asked Elvis if he read the mailing list.

Kurtis added that the mailing list said “yes”.

Gert Doering, APWG Chair, said he commented on the mailing list and said he agreed that a problem needs solving but disagrees with the solution that Erik proposed. He said that RADB mirrors RIPE so they have all the official route objects so there's no need to every put a route object for a RIPE network into RADB.

Erik replied no because that works if you actually have the ASN in the RIPE Database as well.

Gert replied that maybe they need to finally fix that bit.

Erik said that one side or the other needs to be fixed and he didn't care much about how the solution was found.

Gert commented that introducing complex computer mechanisms wasn't the right way forward.

Geoff Huston, APNIC, commented that it wasn't the first time this has come out and that there was a long-standing IETF draft. He added another way of thinking about a solution is to use a signing structure derived from the RPKI and sign objects in the Database. He said this solution was liked in the IETF because it's a bit like DNSSEC in that it doesn't care where the information is from but if the signature is valid and the resources it describes in the certificate match the resources in the object, you can trust its authenticity. He added that he wasn't arguing one solution as superior to another but that the solutions already being suggested in standard bodies should be explored first and that Erik should work with the rest of them to make solutions that work for everyone.

Ruediger said wanted to raise a more fundamental doubt about the approach, adding that putting out a policy proposal to the RIPE NCC Services WG is not really a fitting approach if it's actually asking for a technical solution that is not really materially defined. He added that a policy proposal would make sense once a technically mature design was available and then maybe it could be discussed at the GM to allocate resources. He said that overall some speakers agree that the problem of routing security is not well understood and needs urgent attention. He echoed Geoff's point that a broader view must be taken on the right path forward and limiting it to a single approach, a policy, is not appropriate. He added that the proposal didn't have a clear statement about requirements, no clear design definition so it's not appropriate to ask for implementation.

Kurtis asked that the discussion be continued on the mailing list for further discussion.

Rob Evans, Routing Working Group Co-Chair, said he applauded Erik for putting it out there but that everyone needed to work together.

Erik asked for more time for comments on the mailing list and said he wanted to use the meeting week to make progress on the proposal.

There were no further questions.

Kurtis noted that due to time constraints there wouldn't be an open mic agenda item or AOBs and closed the session.