This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Fri Sep 23 16:07:25 CEST 2011
On 23/09/2011 14:38, Sander Steffann wrote: > I know, but that would change the IPv6 PI policy into a judgement call > by an IPRA. That would make the policy unimplementable. The information > would still be interesting though, which is why I suggest to the RIPE > NCC that they ask for it anyway. It's just a suggestion. We don't tell > the NCC how to implement policy, but we can suggest :-) I admit that drawing the line between policy and implementation is a difficult issue, and that there are tensions between the two requirements. On the one hand, IPRAs get quite vague policies from ap-wg and would often like more clarity because they have a job to do and interpreting policy can sometimes be difficult. On the other hand, ap-wg tends to prefer to prescribe general principles and let the IPRAs do what seems sensible because they don't always have a clear picture of exactly the sort of requests that the IPRAs have to deal with. Hey, you can't legislate for every eventuality. Enough philosophy. There are two things that concern me here: 1. in this situation, I made a suggestion to add something to the policy and the proposers didn't put it into the policy and that's fine (I'm not hung up on 2011-02 and really want to see some form of IPv6 PI appear soon, and I'm particularly not hung up on the suggestion I made). However, someone blinked and now it's implicitly a part of the policy even though it wasn't part of the policy before. 2. if interpretation is implicitly added to a policy without it being explicitly stated, then the APWG is creating an expectation that the RIPE NCC will listen to this interpretation. I don't agree that it's just a suggestion: if there was no expectation that the NCC wasn't going to listen to it, the suggestion wouldn't have been made in the first place. Look, I really don't want to make this sound like bureaucratic ant abuse, but something has effectively been added to the policy outside the terms of the PDP and there is a problem with this. This is not a 2011-02 problem, but a PDP problem. Let's go ahead with 2011-02 as originally stated in the policy proposal - without the extra interpretation. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]