From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Nov 1 15:28:04 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:28:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2 In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B34A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <20101029100003.10218.56161.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B342@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1288385595.1790.25.camel@obelix> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B34A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 23:27, Milton L Mueller wrote: > And Question 2? As was pointed out above and as the proposal itself notes, abuse will happen and the RIPE will do its best to curb those attempts. There is not absolutely perfect solution. If you can improve upon the proposal, I am sure everyone would be excited to discuss your thoughts. In any case, I think there is a broad consensus that doing it this way is better than doing nothing. Richard From cgrundemann at gmail.com Mon Nov 1 15:52:44 2010 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 08:52:44 -0600 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2 In-Reply-To: References: <20101029100003.10218.56161.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B342@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1288385595.1790.25.camel@obelix> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B34A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:28, Richard Hartmann wrote: > There is not absolutely perfect solution. If you can improve upon the > proposal, I am sure everyone would be excited to discuss your > thoughts. The only true soft-landing solution is to tie IPv6 deployment directly to IPv4 allocation. Organizations which are not deploying IPv6 along with IPv4 in their networks are not efficiently utilizing their IPv4 addresses and should not be allowed to get more. ~Chris > In any case, I think there is a broad consensus that doing it this > way is better than doing nothing. > > > Richard > > -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Nov 1 16:19:18 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:19:18 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2 In-Reply-To: References: <20101029100003.10218.56161.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B342@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1288385595.1790.25.camel@obelix> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B34A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 15:52, Chris Grundemann wrote: > The only true soft-landing solution is to tie IPv6 deployment directly > to IPv4 allocation. Organizations which are not deploying IPv6 along > with IPv4 in their networks are not efficiently utilizing their IPv4 > addresses and should not be allowed to get more. Quoth the proposal: d) Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC. Verifying actual deployment in an end-user-accessible form would be a non-trivial task. Richard PS: Personally, I would not mind if no single IPv4 was made any more without people requesting IPv6, as well. But there's not enough time left to get that through and the problem will solve itself, anyway. From cgrundemann at gmail.com Mon Nov 1 21:45:44 2010 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:45:44 -0600 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2 In-Reply-To: References: <20101029100003.10218.56161.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B342@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1288385595.1790.25.camel@obelix> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B34A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 09:19, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 15:52, Chris Grundemann wrote: > >> The only true soft-landing solution is to tie IPv6 deployment directly >> to IPv4 allocation. Organizations which are not deploying IPv6 along >> with IPv4 in their networks are not efficiently utilizing their IPv4 >> addresses and should not be allowed to get more. > > Quoth the proposal: > > d) Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received > an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC. > > Verifying actual deployment in an end-user-accessible form would > be a non-trivial task. True, but we have found ways of gauging utilization of IPv4 addresses without too much effort. Their are some fairly low-touch requirements that could be applied here for IPv6 addresses as well. Such as; entry's in WHOIS, network diagrams/plans, subnetting plans, an announcement in the BGP table, etc. > > Richard > > PS: Personally, I would not mind if no single IPv4 was made any > more without people requesting IPv6, as well. But there's not > enough time left to get that through and the problem will solve > itself, anyway. It's very possible that we are too late to make an appreciable difference to standard allocations, agreed. Hopefully this does solve itself but it may be worth considering such a requirement WRT not only standard allocations but also post-depletion transfers (i.e. a change to section 5.3 would effect transfers under section 5.5). $0.02 ~Chris -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Nov 1 23:55:34 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:55:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2 In-Reply-To: References: <20101029100003.10218.56161.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B342@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1288385595.1790.25.camel@obelix> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B34A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 21:45, Chris Grundemann wrote: > True, but we have found ways of gauging utilization of IPv4 addresses > without too much effort. Their are some fairly low-touch requirements > that could be applied here for IPv6 addresses as well. Such as; > entry's in WHOIS, network diagrams/plans, subnetting plans, an > announcement in the BGP table, etc. All those are easy to trivial to fake. That being said, adding them is not a bad thing as long as valid requests are not held up too much. > It's very possible that we are too late to make an appreciable > difference to standard allocations, agreed. Hopefully this does solve > itself but it may be worth considering such a requirement WRT not only > standard allocations but also post-depletion transfers (i.e. a change > to section 5.3 would effect transfers under section 5.5). Not a bad idea. I think I like it :) > $0.02 Itym ?0.02 ;) Richard From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Nov 8 16:25:41 2010 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:25:41 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 Review Period extended until 22 November (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders) Message-ID: <20101108152541.8475C6A007@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The Review Phase of the proposal 2008-08 has ended. During this review phase no comments were received. Hence the Review Period has been extended until 22 November 2010. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to . Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Tue Nov 9 11:54:28 2010 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:54:28 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Update on global policy ripe-497 Message-ID: <4CD92864.5080803@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, We would like to update you on the status of RIPE Policy ripe-497 (ex proposal 2009-01), "Global Policy for the Allocation of the IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries". Recently, ICANN announced that the Number Resource Organisation (NRO) Executive Council (NRO EC) deemed the global policy proposal "Global Policy for the Allocation of the IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" abandoned. This was in view of version differences in the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The ICANN announcement is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12may09-en.htm The full text of the policy, ripe-497, is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-497.html Best regards, Emilio Madaio RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Fri Nov 12 13:47:03 2010 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:47:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects) Message-ID: <20101112124704.0C8676A017@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-452,"Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 10 December 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From gert at space.net Mon Nov 15 09:50:00 2010 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:50:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Agenda (second draft) for RIPE 61 in Rome Message-ID: <20101115085000.GZ86316@Space.Net> Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find new draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Rome in the following three time slots: Wednesday, November 17, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, November 17, 11:00 - 12:30 Thursday, November 18, 09:00 - 11:30 the main change is that I had to move Nick Hilliard's policy proposals from Thursday to Wednesday (due to conflict with EIX-WG), and then had to shuffle around the rest to form something resembling a logical structure again :-) The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might move items one time slot "up" or "down". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything else, please let us know. Gert Doering -- APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) point to Axel Pawlik http://www.ripe.net/legal/Closure-of-LIR-and-deregistration-of-INRs_final-draft.pdf (ncc services WG) B. Current Policy Topics - Emilio Madaio [20-30 min] - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE60 2008-07 Efficient Use of Historical IPv4 Resources - withdrawn 2009-01 Global Policy ... Allocation of IPv4 to RIRs - accepted 2010-03 Global Policy State in RIPE PDP - withdrawn 2010-04 80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup - accepted - brief overview over new proposals (2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07) C. Document Cosmetic Surgeries Project - Emilio Madaio [10 min] - update on current status - how to go forward? D. Rough Edges of the current policies [30 min] Report from the RIPE NCC Registration Services department on issues and unintended side-effects showing up in the daily implementation of the RIPE policies. Presentation from Alex Le Heux from the RIPE NCC RS: o transfer policy and problems with business take-overs [problem statement] Discussion about the transfer policy issues, and what to do about it. E. More Rough Edges of the current policies [10 min] "things that have been come up in various fora" o interpretation of "utilisation threshold" in IPv6 policy regarding /48 and /56s - proposal by Arno Meulenkamp for wording cleanup: "It might be good to rephrase the text to "Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR) satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilisation in terms of assigned address space in units of /56 blocks." (5.2.1, discussion on ipv6-ops at cluenet.de) [came up in discussion on the ipv6-ops list, presentation by Gert Doering] o "end site" definition - RIPE 481, 2.9 2 ADSL links, not connected networks, same legal organization -> is there a conflict or not? 1 /48 or 2? do we need to change the policy / clarify the policy text? [came up in discussion between the WG chairs, presentation by Sander Steffann, discussion] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- G. Discussion of open policy proposals, not "PI related" 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies [15 min] (Nick Hilliard) [ONGOING] H. Discussion of open policy proposals, "PI related" 2006-05 PI Assignment Size [15 min] (Nick Hilliard) [ONGOING / REVIVED] 2010-07 Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP [10 min] (presentation by Sergi Polischuk) [NEW policy proposal] I. Even More Rough Edges of the current policies [45 min] o definition of "openness" in the IPv6 EIX policy initiated by 2010-07, but widening the scope from "wording change" to "figure out what the policy should be, *then* talk about specific wording" [presentation by Gert Doering, discussion] o generic IPv6 PI discussion(?) Presentation from Alex Le Heux from the NCC RS on PI "background info": o PI size distribution and its history (growing assignments) [background info] o IPv6 PI vs. IPv4 PI - background data [background info] differences between IPv4 PI and IPv6 PI are being discussed since RIPE 59 - but no specific proposals on the table yet. Is there a need to change the policy, or is it "mostly fine"? [presentation by Gert Doering, discussion] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- T. Discussion of open policy proposals (part II) 2010-05 Global Policy for IPv4 Allocation by the IANA [15 min] post exhaustion (Jason Schiller et. al.) [NEW policy proposal] mudfight between ARIN CEO and whoever feels like it [15 min] 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders [15 min] (Nigel Titley, CA TF - version 2 update) [ONGOING] 2010-02 Allocations from the last /8 [15 min] (new combined proposal from Philip Smith and Alain Bidron) [ONGOING] Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity." (Idea from ARIN policy meeting) o Martin Hannigan / Jason Schiller: proposal about Inter-RIR transfers Z. AOB -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From richih at richih.org Mon Nov 22 15:10:58 2010 From: richih at richih.org (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:10:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals Message-ID: Hi all, I am aware that this list is not ideal for my concern; I simply defaulted to the least inappropriate list. One of my pet peeves is that the RIRs use clashing naming schemes for their proposals. If someone talks about proposal 2010-1 and does not provide context, there is an unnecessary burden on people figuring out if this the RIPE's or the ARIN's proposal they are talking about. The solution is simpe: A unique prefix. Possible suggestions for prefixes include: * ripe- The obvious choice. Short, precise, lower case. A potential problem is that once ripe documents reach a certain count, there might be confusion over the proposal ripe-2020-1 vs the document ripe-2010, i.e. that there is nothing specifying that we are talking about a proposal. * ripe-proposal- Unique, but long. * ripe-draft- Unique, not 100% correct with RIPE's naming scheme, but shorter. * ripe-prop- Unique, similar to how APNIC and AfriNIC handle things. * RIPE- Unique, short, somewhat ugly, does not specify that this is a proposal. Analogous to how LACNIC handles it. I am not sure if this warrants its own proposal which is why I am simply throwing the issue out in the open to see what the community at large thinks about this issue. Personally, I would tend towards "ripe-prop-". It's reasonably short but leaves room for expansion (ripe-doc-, etc) and unification. Any and all feedback welcome :) Richard From james.blessing at despres.co.uk Mon Nov 22 15:43:54 2010 From: james.blessing at despres.co.uk (James Blessing) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:43:54 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22 November 2010 14:10, Richard Hartmann wrote: > The solution is simpe: A unique prefix. > > Possible suggestions for prefixes include: > How about ripe-wg- Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999) J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From david.freedman at uk.clara.net Mon Nov 22 14:47:22 2010 From: david.freedman at uk.clara.net (David Freedman) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:47:22 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +1 On 22/11/2010 15:43, "James Blessing" wrote: > On 22 November 2010 14:10, Richard Hartmann wrote: > >> The solution is simpe: A unique prefix. >> >> Possible suggestions for prefixes include: >> > > How about > > ripe-wg- > > Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this > list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999) > > J -- David Freedman Group Network Engineering david.freedman at uk.clara.net Tel +44 (0) 20 7685 8000 Claranet Group 21 Southampton Row London - WC1B 5HA - UK http://www.claranet.com Company Registration: 3152737 - Place of registration: England All the information contained within this electronic message from Claranet Ltd is covered by the disclaimer at http://www.claranet.co.uk/disclaimer From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Nov 22 16:18:33 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:18:33 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 15:43, James Blessing wrote: > Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this > list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999) Sounds reasonable to me. And it's even shorter. Richard From gert at space.net Mon Nov 22 16:25:58 2010 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:25:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101122152558.GP98114@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 04:18:33PM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote: > > Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this > > list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999) > Sounds reasonable to me. And it's even shorter. For us, it is :-9 - I'm not sure whether the routing-wg folks are going to like it... Regarding the specific proposal, I can certainly see why you'd want this, and if there is enough backing here, I'll bring it up among the WG chairs and the RIPE NCC to see what can be done about it. regards, Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Nov 22 17:14:57 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:14:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <20101122152558.GP98114@Space.Net> References: <20101122152558.GP98114@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 16:25, Gert Doering wrote: > For us, it is :-9 - I'm not sure whether the routing-wg folks are going > to like it... I would argue that the specific WGs would have the final say on anything relating to them (if we end up using WG-specific prefixes), anyway. For example, ripe-rt- would work nicely. > Regarding the specific proposal, I can certainly see why you'd want this, > and if there is enough backing here, I'll bring it up among the WG chairs > and the RIPE NCC to see what can be done about it. Thanks. Would/Should I write a proper proposal for that or would you just take it up directly? Richard PS: Yes, the RIPE is using RT for tickets, but I doubt they would want that namespace for RT. From gert at space.net Mon Nov 22 17:17:28 2010 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:17:28 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101122152558.GP98114@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20101122161728.GU98114@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Thanks. Would/Should I write a proper proposal for that or would you > just take it up directly? Since this is more operational than "formal policy", I'll discuss it first, and then see what comes out of this. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rhe at nosc.ja.net Mon Nov 22 17:14:08 2010 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:14:08 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <20101122152558.GP98114@Space.Net> References: <20101122152558.GP98114@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4CEA96D0.8010705@nosc.ja.net> > For us, it is :-9 - I'm not sure whether the routing-wg folks are going > to like it... That's OK, we'll punt any proposals somewhere shorter to type. Or maybe use an abbreviation, but I prefer the first solution. Sounds like a good idea. Has it been discussed in any other regions too? All the best, Rob From davidm at futureinquestion.net Mon Nov 22 17:45:39 2010 From: davidm at futureinquestion.net (David Monosov) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:45:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CEA9E33.9080705@futureinquestion.net> Dear Richard, address-policy-wg, This seems straight forward and reasonable. I'd like to express my support for this change. Furthermore, my preference is for the ripe- prefix proposed by James. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 11/22/2010 03:10 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote: > > The solution is simpe: A unique prefix. > From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Nov 22 18:12:02 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:12:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <4CEA96D0.8010705@nosc.ja.net> References: <20101122152558.GP98114@Space.Net> <4CEA96D0.8010705@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 17:14, Rob Evans wrote: > Sounds like a good idea. ?Has it been discussed in any other regions too? No. I posted on this list first, Gert will take it from here if enough people think it's a good idea. I don't think anyone is sure if I need to write a proper proposal or if things will be done via an administrative path (if it's done at all), at the moment. Richard From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Nov 22 18:13:34 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:13:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <4CEA9E33.9080705@futureinquestion.net> References: <4CEA9E33.9080705@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 17:45, David Monosov wrote: > This seems straight forward and reasonable. I'd like to express my support for > this change. Furthermore, my preference is for the ripe- prefix > proposed by James. What about ripe- ? Richard From adam at amyl.org.uk Mon Nov 22 18:21:33 2010 From: adam at amyl.org.uk (Adam McGreggor) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:21:33 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101122172133.GH3786@hendricks.amyl.org.uk> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:43:54PM +0000, James Blessing wrote: > How about > > ripe-wg- > > Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this > list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999) +1 -- Yorkshire Water has been deluged by a flood of complaints following its poor handling of the drought (BBC news) From michiel at klaver.it Mon Nov 22 19:20:49 2010 From: michiel at klaver.it (Michiel Klaver) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:20:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <4CEA9E33.9080705@futureinquestion.net> References: <4CEA9E33.9080705@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <4CEAB481.5060500@klaver.it> +1 At 22-11-2010 17:45, David Monosov wrote: > Dear Richard, address-policy-wg, > > This seems straight forward and reasonable. I'd like to express my support for > this change. Furthermore, my preference is for the ripe- prefix > proposed by James. > > -- > Respectfully yours, > > David Monosov > > > On 11/22/2010 03:10 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote: > >> >> The solution is simpe: A unique prefix. >> > From joao at bondis.org Tue Nov 23 12:20:46 2010 From: joao at bondis.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Damas?=) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:20:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <4CEA9E33.9080705@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <798F191B-A499-4E51-83A1-B2F2D8ADA64D@bondis.org> we don't kill anyone, we just null-route them ;) Whatever makes life easier, I will be happy with Joao On 22 Nov 2010, at 18:13, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 17:45, David Monosov > wrote: > >> This seems straight forward and reasonable. I'd like to express my support for >> this change. Furthermore, my preference is for the ripe- prefix >> proposed by James. > > What about ripe- ? > > > Richard > From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue Nov 23 13:13:19 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:13:19 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101122152558.GP98114@Space.Net> <4CEA96D0.8010705@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <4CEBAFDF.5060104@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 17:14, Rob Evans wrote: > > >>Sounds like a good idea. Has it been discussed in any other regions too? I like the idea in general and the proposal with ripe- in particular. > No. I posted on this list first, Gert will take it from here if enough > people think it's a good idea. I do. > I don't think anyone is sure if I need to write a proper proposal or > if things will be done via an administrative path (if it's done at > all), at the moment. My feeling is that we don't need any full-blown formal proposal as there is no impact on the management of resources. I consider it a purely logistical issue :-) > Richard Thanks for bringing it up! Wilfried. From raymond.jetten at elisa.fi Tue Nov 23 14:14:21 2010 From: raymond.jetten at elisa.fi (Raymond Jetten) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:14:21 +0200 (EET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <4CEBAFDF.5060104@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <20101122152558.GP98114@Space.Net> <4CEA96D0.8010705@nosc.ja.net> <4CEBAFDF.5060104@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: Hi all, +1 Cheers, Ray On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:13:19 +0000 > From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals > > Richard Hartmann wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 17:14, Rob Evans wrote: >> >> >>> Sounds like a good idea. Has it been discussed in any other regions too? > > I like the idea in general and the proposal with ripe- in particular. > >> No. I posted on this list first, Gert will take it from here if enough >> people think it's a good idea. > > I do. > >> I don't think anyone is sure if I need to write a proper proposal or >> if things will be done via an administrative path (if it's done at >> all), at the moment. > > My feeling is that we don't need any full-blown formal proposal as there is > no impact on the management of resources. I consider it a purely logistical > issue :-) > >> Richard > > Thanks for bringing it up! > Wilfried. > > -- ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten ??? Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Senior System Specialist Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A?? ?????????? raymond.jetten at elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE????????? http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************ From andy at nosignal.org Tue Nov 23 15:31:00 2010 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:31:00 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <4CEA9E33.9080705@futureinquestion.net> References: <4CEA9E33.9080705@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <615F95B4-A070-4B69-8682-D18F98DFB0E3@nosignal.org> On 22 Nov 2010, at 16:45, David Monosov wrote: > This seems straight forward and reasonable. I'd like to express my support for > this change. Furthermore, my preference is for the ripe- prefix > proposed by James. Will the NCC have to update internal software systems to support this new nomenclature, and if so will it be complex or expensive to implement ? Andy From dr at cluenet.de Wed Nov 24 02:12:40 2010 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:12:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:43:54PM +0000, James Blessing wrote: > How about > > ripe-wg- > > Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this > list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999) Where is the added value of encoding a WG in the identifier? The PDP is cross-WG anyway so why introduce semantics in the proposal ID? Especially in the light of proposals touching multiple WG. I would suggest the prefix $RIR-PDP-$year-$number, e.g. RIPE-PDP-2010-4711 PDP for Policy Development Process, a term universally used by all RIRs. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Nov 24 02:31:13 2010 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:31:13 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: On 24 Nov 2010, at 01:12, Daniel Roesen wrote: > I would suggest the prefix $RIR-PDP-$year-$number, e.g. RIPE- > PDP-2010-4711 PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals. I'll bet you're one of these people who says "PIN number" or "IP protocol". :-) From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed Nov 24 06:44:34 2010 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:44:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: On 24 nov 2010, at 02:31, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 24 Nov 2010, at 01:12, Daniel Roesen wrote: > >> I would suggest the prefix $RIR-PDP-$year-$number, e.g. RIPE-PDP-2010-4711 > > PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals. > > I'll bet you're one of these people who says "PIN number" or "IP protocol". :-) You probably want to keep out of the document namespace which is RIPE- already, so putting something in between would be nice. MarcoH From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Nov 24 11:19:24 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:19:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:31, Jim Reid wrote: > PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals. To be fair, the prefix scheme might be adapted to other uses as well. For example, it might make sense to use ripe-doc- for documents, at some point. Also, as pointed out in my initial email, ripe-nnnn is used for documents. ripe-nnnn and ripe-nnnn-nn are way too similar for humans to parse correctly at all times and they don't sort nicely, either. Richard From dr at cluenet.de Wed Nov 24 11:56:57 2010 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:56:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:19:24AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote: > > PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals. > > To be fair, the prefix scheme might be adapted to other uses as well. > For example, it might make sense to use ripe-doc- for documents, at > some point. That was indeed one of the reasons for my suggestion. Clearly separate namespace, adaptable to other documents/objects as well. I should probably have explained that explicitly. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Wed Nov 24 14:15:24 2010 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco Van Mook) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:15:24 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: Since policy proposals are transient and RIPE documents are permanent, I would strongly urge to stay away from any attempt to rename or renumber RIPE documents. RFCs don't get renamed or renumbered either, and for very good reason. Remco > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Roesen > Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:57 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:19:24AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote: > > > PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals. > > > > To be fair, the prefix scheme might be adapted to other uses as well. > > For example, it might make sense to use ripe-doc- for documents, at > > some point. > > That was indeed one of the reasons for my suggestion. Clearly separate > namespace, adaptable to other documents/objects as well. I should probably > have explained that explicitly. > > Best regards, > Daniel > > -- > CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. From joao at bondis.org Wed Nov 24 15:25:50 2010 From: joao at bondis.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Damas?=) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:25:50 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <2AF03667-54E0-43C4-9942-45C3E024145E@bondis.org> I couldn't agree more. Joao On 24 Nov 2010, at 14:15, Remco Van Mook wrote: > Since policy proposals are transient and RIPE documents are permanent, I would strongly urge to stay away from any attempt to rename or renumber RIPE documents. RFCs don't get renamed or renumbered either, and for very good reason. > > Remco From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Nov 24 15:36:49 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:36:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 14:15, Remco Van Mook wrote: > Since policy proposals are transient and RIPE documents are permanent, I would strongly urge to stay away from any attempt to rename or renumber RIPE documents. RFCs don't get renamed or renumbered either, and for very good reason. Renumbering is out of the question for obvious reasons. _If_ the naming scheme for documents were to be changed, it would need to happen in a fully backwards compatible way. For example, an existing ripe-1234 would still be ripe-1234, but ripe-doc-1234 could be used as a "soft link" to it. For the _new_ document ripe-doc-2345 might be used as the sole name from the beginning. But again, this is not part of my initial proposal. I went with a simple and, hopefully, uncontroversial proposal first. If and when other naming schemes should be evaluated as well will need to be determined later. Unless there is a general consensus that we should do it all at once. In which case I would not be opposed to discussing this, either. Richard From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Wed Nov 24 17:01:40 2010 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco Van Mook) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:01:40 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: I'm more than happy to support your idea for the naming convention of policy proposals. I'll stick to my point of the actual documents however - history does not soft-link. Especially when people are expected to comply (which is the main reason for both protocol and policy to begin with) it's crucial to have a single name attached to it. Eternal confusion arises when you don't. Remco > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist at gmail.com] > Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 15:37 > To: Remco Van Mook > Cc: Daniel Roesen; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 14:15, Remco Van Mook > wrote: > > > Since policy proposals are transient and RIPE documents are permanent, I > would strongly urge to stay away from any attempt to rename or renumber > RIPE documents. RFCs don't get renamed or renumbered either, and for very > good reason. > > Renumbering is out of the question for obvious reasons. > > _If_ the naming scheme for documents were to be changed, it would need > to happen in a fully backwards compatible way. For example, an existing ripe- > 1234 would still be ripe-1234, but ripe-doc-1234 could be used as a "soft link" > to it. For the _new_ document ripe-doc-2345 might be used as the sole name > from the beginning. > > But again, this is not part of my initial proposal. I went with a simple and, > hopefully, uncontroversial proposal first. If and when other naming schemes > should be evaluated as well will need to be determined later. Unless there is > a general consensus that we should do it all at once. In which case I would > not be opposed to discussing this, either. > > > Richard This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Nov 24 18:49:38 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:49:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 17:01, Remco Van Mook wrote: > I'm more than happy to support your idea for the naming convention of policy proposals. Thanks :) > I'll stick to my point of the actual documents however - history does not soft-link. Especially when people are expected to comply (which is the main reason for both protocol and policy to begin with) it's crucial to have a single name attached to it. Eternal confusion arises when you don't. Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe-doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential confusion, anyway. But again, I don't think there would be any confusion. RIchard From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Wed Nov 24 20:38:50 2010 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco Van Mook) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:38:50 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: > > Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- > doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising > from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential > confusion, anyway. The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe- and ripe-doc- documents. Which one replaces which other one? So again, please don't. Remco This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed Nov 24 20:49:21 2010 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:49:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <41DFAB26-EC98-4404-A6E3-A56A5FDAA2A0@marcoh.net> On 24 nov 2010, at 20:38, Remco Van Mook wrote: >> >> Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- >> doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising >> from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential >> confusion, anyway. > > The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe- and ripe-doc- documents. Which one replaces which other one? > > So again, please don't. > +1 MarcoH (as a private citizen) From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Nov 24 21:31:09 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:31:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 20:38, Remco Van Mook wrote: > The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe- and ripe-doc- documents. Which one replaces which other one? I think that is wildly exaggerated, both in terms of time and level of confusion. Yet, it _is_ a valid concern. > So again, please don't. As of right now, this is not really an issue, anyway. _If_ this is revisited at some point, I am certain that there will be a long & thorough discussion about all possible implications. Richard From dburk at burkov.aha.ru Wed Nov 24 20:51:16 2010 From: dburk at burkov.aha.ru (Dmitry Burkov) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:51:16 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <4CED6CB4.7040904@burkov.aha.ru> On 24.11.10 22:38, Remco Van Mook wrote: >> Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- >> doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising >> from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential >> confusion, anyway. > The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe- and ripe-doc- documents. Which one replaces which other one? > > So again, please don't. Agreed, as don't see any real needs and only future problems. Dmitry > Remco > > > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. From joao at bondis.org Wed Nov 24 21:59:49 2010 From: joao at bondis.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Damas?=) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:59:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <4CED6CB4.7040904@burkov.aha.ru> References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <4CED6CB4.7040904@burkov.aha.ru> Message-ID: On 24 Nov 2010, at 20:51, Dmitry Burkov wrote: > On 24.11.10 22:38, Remco Van Mook wrote: >>> Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- >>> doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising >>> from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential >>> confusion, anyway. >> The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe- and ripe-doc- documents. Which one replaces which other one? >> >> So again, please don't. > Agreed, as don't see any real needs and only future problems. +1 Joao From andy at nosignal.org Thu Nov 25 11:37:23 2010 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:37:23 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> On 24 Nov 2010, at 19:38, Remco Van Mook wrote: > The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe- and ripe-doc- documents. Which one replaces which other one? > > So again, please don't. +1 a From rhe at nosc.ja.net Thu Nov 25 12:09:41 2010 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:09:41 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <4CEE43F5.8080604@nosc.ja.net> Returning to the policy proposal numbering... Could we also then use GLOBAL-PDP-YYYY-NN to maintain a constant number across all regions for global policy proposals? Or do I just need to learn to remember which is which? The text would still have to be agreed by each region individually, but it might make tracking easier. However, having to put all the changes for each RIR into a single document will probably mean changes to the process in each region to cope with that, and I'm very conscious that when we get to the point of spending too much time fiddling with the process itself, it is time to look at what bits of it we need at all. Rob From k13 at nikhef.nl Thu Nov 25 11:49:58 2010 From: k13 at nikhef.nl (Rob Blokzijl) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:49:58 +0100 (MET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <4CED6CB4.7040904@burkov.aha.ru> References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <4CED6CB4.7040904@burkov.aha.ru> Message-ID: Hi, been there, done that :-) When RIPE started, we invented an elaborate series of documents with a 'proper' naming scheme. Trust a physicist (me) and a computer scientist (Daniel) to come up with a scientifically correct solution. This lasted for less then two years, after which we went to the current scheme. It took me only a week or so to go through all the archives and rename documents, and update references. As they say, l'histoire se repete toujours :-) Rob On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Dmitry Burkov wrote: > On 24.11.10 22:38, Remco Van Mook wrote: >>> Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just >>> that ripe- >>> doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion >>> arising >>> from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential >>> confusion, anyway. >> The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be >> wondering what the relation is between ripe- and ripe-doc- >> documents. Which one replaces which other one? >> >> So again, please don't. > Agreed, as don't see any real needs and only future problems. > > Dmitry >> Remco >> >> >> >> This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its >> associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with >> it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged >> and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received >> this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email >> immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 >> Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. >> 6293383. > > From jim at rfc1035.com Thu Nov 25 12:21:49 2010 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:21:49 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ripe-doc- as a prefix In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <2426E0FE-7610-4398-9C1C-A50F2E1E59E9@rfc1035.com> On 24 Nov 2010, at 10:19, Richard Hartmann wrote: > For example, it might make sense to use ripe-doc- for documents, at > some point. This loses if we use ripe-XX where XX is the name of a Working Group and later on the Documentation Working Group is created. From poty at iiat.ru Thu Nov 25 12:53:15 2010 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:53:15 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals Message-ID: >> >> Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- >> doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising >> from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential >> confusion, anyway. >The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between >ripe- and ripe-doc- documents. Which one replaces which other one? >So again, please don't. A document is already have several names assigned to it (ripe-500 = Policy Development Process in RIPE) and has already put in different "categories" (Address Policy and Address Management Related Documents, Recently Published, Current Documents - concerning the ripe-500 example) and has several different meaning of access (web, ftp...). So it is not big deal to have one more "supername" near to the previous name. People who can't deal with simple understanding of "names" and "numbers" are not working with documents, explaining and regulating much more difficult and complicated things. From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Thu Nov 25 12:57:30 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:57:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <4CEE43F5.8080604@nosc.ja.net> References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> <4CEE43F5.8080604@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:09, Rob Evans wrote: > Could we also then use GLOBAL-PDP-YYYY-NN to maintain a constant number > across all regions for global policy proposals? ?Or do I just need to learn > to remember which is which? "Global" is far from ideal, imo. It's not unique at all. rirs-pdp- ? > However, having to put all the changes for each RIR into a single document > will probably mean changes to the process in each region to cope with that, > and I'm very conscious that when we get to the point of spending too much > time fiddling with the process itself, it is time to look at what bits of it > we need at all. A rirs-pdp-1234 could simply reference the individual local working copy with backrefs from said copies to the global one. An alternative about which I am unsure myself would be ripe-global-pdp-1234-56, arin-global-pdp-1234-56 etc pp. Far from ideal, but as we are brainstorming... Richard From rhe at nosc.ja.net Thu Nov 25 13:05:39 2010 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:05:39 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> <4CEE43F5.8080604@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <4CEE5113.1080203@nosc.ja.net> > "Global" is far from ideal, imo. It's not unique at all. rirs-pdp- ? Sorry, brain failure, I'm not seeing why "GLOBAL-PDP" (or perhaps GLOBAL-POLICY) is not unique? I'm not saying this is a good idea either, just throwing it into the discussion... > A rirs-pdp-1234 could simply reference the individual local working > copy with backrefs from said copies to the global one. My kneejerk reaction to that would be "ewww." :-) I think I was intending to keep it all in one place rather than a morass of links, but perhaps I'm thinking about a separate problem, what you're suggesting is really just a web page with information on the status of global policy proposals. Perhaps the ASO or ICANN does that already... :-) Cheers, Rob From nick at inex.ie Thu Nov 25 13:18:31 2010 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:18:31 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <4CEE5417.7070000@inex.ie> www.bikeshed.com Nick From gert at space.net Thu Nov 25 13:39:51 2010 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:39:51 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <4CEE5417.7070000@inex.ie> References: <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> <4CEE5417.7070000@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20101125123951.GH98114@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:18:31PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > www.bikeshed.com What he said :-) So - I can see there is support for "changing the identifiers to help people see where it's coming from", and I think we should leave the details to the nice folks at the RIPE NCC - I've brought it up there, and I'm sure it will be considered thoroughly and a proposal will come up that is a workable compromise of what has been said. So, let's rest this specific discussion here (... and if you feel you *need* to do some discussion now, we'd welcome some feedback on 2008-08...) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Nov 25 13:41:01 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:41:01 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <4CEE5113.1080203@nosc.ja.net> References: <20101124011240.GA20171@srv03.cluenet.de> <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> <4CEE43F5.8080604@nosc.ja.net> <4CEE5113.1080203@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <4CEE595D.1000302@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Rob Evans wrote: [...] > ... I think I was > intending to keep it all in one place rather than a morass of links, but > perhaps I'm thinking about a separate problem, what you're suggesting is > really just a web page with information on the status of global policy > proposals. Perhaps the ASO or ICANN does that already... :-) Yep. As soon as a policy is introduced in a region, with the intent to become a global policy, a sort of surveillance or early-warning process gets started. This is done in order to formally keep track of the proposal(s) and to collect documentation about the process in each region, and potential differences to the substance. It also serves to avoid surprises for ICANN's BoD :-) Collecting that stuff is currently done by ICANN Staff (with the help of the RIRs' officers supporting the regional PDP), in support of both the ASO and the BoD. > Cheers, > Rob I'll go back a short while, trying to come up with an idea how to make use of what is there already. Cheers, Wilfried (with AC hat on for a moment) From jaap at NLnetLabs.nl Thu Nov 25 13:59:22 2010 From: jaap at NLnetLabs.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:59:22 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <20101125123951.GH98114@Space.Net> References: <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> <4CEE5417.7070000@inex.ie> <20101125123951.GH98114@Space.Net> Message-ID: <201011251259.oAPCxMPf083448@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> So - I can see there is support for "changing the identifiers to help people see where it's coming from", and I think we should leave the details to the nice folks at the RIPE NCC - I've brought it up there, and I'm sure it will be considered thoroughly and a proposal will come up that is a workable compromise of what has been said. I don't think that a different naming scheme in document identifiers is a poor substitute for a decent lookup system. What people are actual asking for is a decent way to find RIPE (drafts-) documents. And that by various methods (keyword search, search by workgroup, policy type). One might be better of with something like the IETF or the tools on then a "trick to encode a look up scheme in an identifier". (Thnk DNS versus a Google search). jaap From jaap at NLnetLabs.nl Thu Nov 25 14:08:46 2010 From: jaap at NLnetLabs.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:08:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <201011251259.oAPCxMPf083448@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> References: <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> <4CEE5417.7070000@inex.ie> <20101125123951.GH98114@Space.Net> <201011251259.oAPCxMPf083448@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> Message-ID: <201011251308.oAPD8kq0090139@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> So - I can see there is support for "changing the identifiers to help people see where it's coming from", and I think we should leave the details to the nice folks at the RIPE NCC - I've brought it up there, and I'm sure it will be considered thoroughly and a proposal will come up that is a workable compromise of what has been said. Oops, typo coming up. It should of course be "I DO think that .. I don't think that a different naming scheme in document identifiers is a poor substitute for a decent lookup system. What people are actual asking for is a decent way to find RIPE (drafts-) documents. And that by various methods (keyword search, search by workgroup, policy type). One might be better of with something like the IETF or the tools on then a "trick to encode a look up scheme in an identifier". (Thnk DNS versus a Google search). jaap From emadaio at ripe.net Thu Nov 25 14:23:05 2010 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:23:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources) Message-ID: <20101125132305.7B15A6A01B@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The proposed change to RIPE Document has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-07.html The reason for withdrawal is: the proposer decided to withdraw the proposal. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Thu Nov 25 14:39:11 2010 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:39:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: <201011251259.oAPCxMPf083448@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> References: <20101124105657.GA26331@srv03.cluenet.de> <011B009F-2E8C-47C2-BA99-50855BDA899B@nosignal.org> <4CEE5417.7070000@inex.ie> <20101125123951.GH98114@Space.Net> <201011251259.oAPCxMPf083448@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 13:59, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: > What people are > actual asking for is a decent way to find RIPE (drafts-) documents. As the person who proposed this, I have to disagree. What I was asking about was a way to know if "proposal 1234-56" refers to a proposal within the RIPE or the ARIN community. That being said,... > And that by various methods (keyword search, search by workgroup, > policy type). One might be better of with something like the IETF > or the tools on > then a "trick to encode a look up scheme in an identifier". (Thnk > DNS versus a Google search). ...appending yet another integer to mark versions is A Good Thing. Though I, personally, would simply set up gitweb or similar and dump everything in there. IETF's datatracker is OK-ish, but leaves a lot to be desired. Plus, keeping everything in a VCS allows everyone to read, track, compare and revisit history with a myriad of tools of their own choice, at a place of their choice, with the interface of their choice instead of forcing them to be online and to use a website. Richard PS: Thanks to Nick Hiliard for his mail. From heather.skanks at gmail.com Thu Nov 25 15:25:39 2010 From: heather.skanks at gmail.com (Heather Schiller) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:25:39 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree that it would be really great to have a unique naming mechanism for policy proposals across regions. I'd also like to suggest that somehow Global Policies have some consistent naming mechanism across regions, so that they stand out a bit and folks can follow the conversation across regions. Maybe instead of RIR- it could be NRO- Global Policies being the ones enacted across all RIR's and spell out the actions between RIR's and IANA. For example, "Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion" --Heather On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Hi all, > > I am aware that this list is not ideal for my concern; I simply > defaulted to the least inappropriate list. > > One of my pet peeves is that the RIRs use clashing naming schemes for > their proposals. If someone talks about proposal 2010-1 and does not > provide context, there is an unnecessary burden on people figuring out > if this the RIPE's or the ARIN's proposal they are talking about. > > The solution is simpe: A unique prefix. > > Possible suggestions for prefixes include: > > * ripe- > ?The obvious choice. Short, precise, lower case. A potential problem > is that once ripe documents reach a certain count, there might be > confusion over the proposal ripe-2020-1 vs the document ripe-2010, > i.e. that there is nothing specifying that we are talking about a > proposal. > > * ripe-proposal- > ?Unique, but long. > > * ripe-draft- > ?Unique, not 100% correct with RIPE's naming scheme, but shorter. > > * ripe-prop- > ?Unique, similar to how APNIC and AfriNIC handle things. > > * RIPE- > ?Unique, short, somewhat ugly, does not specify that this is a > proposal. Analogous to how LACNIC handles it. > > > I am not sure if this warrants its own proposal which is why I am > simply throwing the issue out in the open to see what the community at > large thinks about this issue. > > Personally, I would tend towards "ripe-prop-". It's reasonably short > but leaves room for expansion (ripe-doc-, etc) and unification. > > > Any and all feedback welcome :) > Richard > > From sander at steffann.nl Fri Nov 26 13:55:45 2010 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:55:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 is going to Last Call Message-ID: <211BBA48-FB3A-409C-9780-41C7E36035C9@steffann.nl> Dear Colleagues, The Review Phase for the RIPE policy proposal 2010-02 ended on 4 November. Community feedback to the list was mainly positive. Some comments noted that the potential advantages outweigh any disadvantages, and that the major arguments against the proposal had been addressed and clarified during the AP WG session at RIPE 61. Therefore, it has been decided to move the proposal to Last Call. Sander Steffann Address Policy WG co-chair From emadaio at ripe.net Fri Nov 26 15:01:45 2010 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:01:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 Last Call for Comments (Allocations from the last /8) Message-ID: <20101126140145.8C5856A002@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2010-02 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 24 December 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Nov 29 17:02:01 2010 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:02:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects) Message-ID: <20101129160201.85B6F6A026@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The proposed change to RIPE Document has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html Reason for withdrawal: the proposer decided to withdraw the proposal based on the feedback received at RIPE 61. A task force will be organised to solve the implementation issues pointed out by the proposal discussion. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Tue Nov 30 16:18:33 2010 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:18:33 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-01 Last Call for Comments (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies) Message-ID: <20101130151833.CDB916A049@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2010-01 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-01.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 28 December 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC