[address-policy-wg] 2007-01 review phase comments

Hi Niall, community,

Niall O'Reilly wrote:

> 
> On 15 May 2008, at 10:02, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
>> This means that the proposal needs to re-enter review phase, and we'll
>> ask you to closely look at it, and confirm that you're expressing
>> support for the *latest revision* of the proposal.

I am trying to do that once again and I am *not* able to express my
support for the latest (Version 2) revision of the proposal and the draft
doc. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft.html ,
for a couple of reasons:


- the headline of this draft is

"IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment
 Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"

which for me implies that it is supposed to apply to address space
distributed as a service by the RIPE NCC to its Service Region.

This seems to be confirmed (in Section 9.0) by the paragraph headline of

"End Users requesting PI space should be given this or a similar warning:"

Looking at the (1st block of) NEW TEXT talking about PI and routability
seems pretty reasonable and consistent.

However, looking at the next block of text labelled ADDITION TO DOCUMENT
which starts to - out of context - talk about ERX (to me) seems grossly
illogical and structurally misplaced.


- trying to sneak in a retro-active requirement into a policy which would
  require the NCC to impose usage limitations, contractual work or new fees
  onto *legitimate* holders of legacy resources without, at the same time,
  offering some reasonable incentive for the resource holders to agree and
  comply, poses the risk of damaging the perception of the RIPE NCC as a
  professional, impartial and "reasonable" organisation trying to support
  the community.


I thus propose to remove this additional text block (which seems to have
been introduced without much review and consistency checking when producing
Version 2).


At the same time I'd like to explicitely voice support for the goal of -
eventually - trying to bring the legacy resource holders (including AS
numbers) under the umbrella of the RIPE NCC's regular resource management
environment. The most reasonable point in time to do that seems to be the
availability of the RPKI Service (in production quality) and maybe by way
of a separate policy proposal - if a new policy is necessary at all at that
point in time, rather than simply a new service offer.


Regards,
Wilfried.