[address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Good enough?

On 23/09/2013 17:54, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> Is that good enough?
> I think it should be, if we are willing to work together.

So beautiful  :-)

I was (sincerely) quite "touched" by what Malcolm wrote and proposed,
and also his ability to reach the expected rought consensus inside
his own head. Please read this at first degree : I am not sarcastic
and I do not want my bad english be miss-interpreted, I am sincere.

I wish I could too, but unfortunately "supporting arguments" still
miss, whereas deregulation obsesses me a little bit.

*

Malcoms makes some good points however, by proposing the solution of
removing the upfront documentation while maintaining the capacity of
control of the NCC, thus making fair (still to be defined) use of the
ressources a necessity for LIRs, and also ensure they can provide
proper documentation when requested to do so. before, after, on-demand
... Who knows anyway how it is made today, with AW ?

But what is the difference, actually, between gathering the information
and making the proper documentation when you do things, or trying to
make it late and under pressure months or years later ? It seems quite
obvious to me that, if proper documentation has to be produced on day,
the only way is to make it on time. But, OK, whatever suspicious I can
be regarding this, why not let each one deal with its paperwork
organisation.

This also leads me to request a bit more precision : what is the
documentation one would expect ? This question also concerns the
proposal Filiz made recently, and McTim just recalled :

   "3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must
   confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation."

What demonstration, what documentation ? Note : this is about needs
for IP addresse space (not for "an allocation"), and this is about
needs for addresses not yet granted by the RIR to the LIR, so we are
in a very different context here, from Malcom's post documentation
which is about already assigned IP space.


And to finish on this point I would personnaly be reassured by knowing
that this "past need" on-demand documentation would *quite probably*
be requested to justify that past allocations where properly used, and
before a new allocation or transfer can be granted. Which might have
some encouraging effect. But this would need to be written somewhere.
Which brings me to my second point.

*

My other concern is that point 4. does not modifiy the proposal, but
calls for another PDP and another proposal, while agreeing for this
one that remain, by definition, not satisfying. Well, I do not see the
point of having a separate PDP, if it has to go though the same process
anyway. I think they should be merged, so that both give a consensus,
or none of them.

I would +1 Richard on this, since "promisses only tie those who believe
them" (litterally translated from French, sorry), we know what 2013-03
removes, we don't have a clue about what a new PDP will bring.

*

I feel sorry about exposing more problems that proposing solutions for
the proposal. But from my view it is difficult to have a fondamentally
wrong idea changed into something acceptable, even by many corrections.

Unfortunately Malcoms very constructive contribution and proposition
does not solve the problems inside 2013-03, and 2013-03 remains what
it is, whatever the PDPs we could imagine to amend it : if we want to
amend it so much, then maybe we should not pass it.

Best regards,
Sylvain