[address-policy-wg] 2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Oct 22 17:00:33 CEST 2008
[ restricting my reply to the ap-wg list ] Thomas, Thomas Narten wrote: >>We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >><address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 17 November 2008. > > > I am opposed to this proposal because it seems completely > inappropriate to use a PDP for something this straightforward and > low-level. the reason for having to use the PDP is the fact that registration format "ASDOT" is explicitely prescribed in the AS# distribution- policy doc. This was a conscious (but maybe unwise) decision, taken at a time when there was no (standards) rfc available. This has already been explained somewhere on the list(s) iirc. > Also, this issue goes beyond RIPE and is about development of an > industry standard. It is not a RIPE-specific issue. There are more > appropriate other fora for developing industry standards. RIPE (and > indeed all RIRs) should defer to other industry bodies for development > of technical standards. > > Note that the IETF is currently finalizing the document > draft-ietf-idr-as-representation-01.txt already. Indeed, the IESG will > be formally considering it this week, so with a little bit of luck, it > will be an RFC in a month. > > At that point, it would be fine for RIPE to adopt that standard, but I > would hope that it could do so without requiring a PDP. (Does RIPE > generally need a PDP before it is allowed to start using an IETF > standards?) I presume in general the answer would be NO to your (question). But please stop bashing RIPE for respecting its own internal procedures. > Let's keep things simple please! Indeed, but I guess you would not recommend to "simply" change a formally adopted policy document, would you? This could be seen as a nasty precedent... > PS, if there are any objections to > draft-ietf-idr-as-representation-01.txt becoming the standard for ASN > representation, make your opinions known to the IETF immediately! > > Thomas Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]