[address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Velea
elvis at velea.eu
Wed Sep 17 03:56:23 CEST 2014
Hi Sandra, I see that the status of this proposal on the RIPE website is "Awaiting Decision from Proposer". The status has not changed since 02 July 2014 :) Do you have any updates on this policy proposal? @WG-chairs - is this proposal frozen now, waiting the result of 2014-02 or will it move to the next PDP step anytime soon? Kind regards, Elvis On 23/06/14 23:02, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > Tore, Thanks for your feedback. See below for comments. > > From: Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy > for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <53A7ECB6.60108 at fud.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > I like it, overall. Clearly there are a few who are interested in > engaging in inter-RIR transfers, and if we can facilitate for this > without imposing any cost or burden on those who are not interested, I > can see no reason to not do this. > > With regards to the proposals second argument against (regarding the > re-introduction of "need" if another RIR insists), I do not consider > that to be problematic at all, as it would be a burden that would be > borne in its entirety by the entity voluntarily taking part in a > transfer involving a "needy" RIR. > > I have some comments/suggested improvements though: > > 1) I concur with other posters that the use of ?LIR? should be avoided. > However, I'd also like to add that suggested replacement ?organisation? > could potentially also be problematic, as a resource holder could be a > natural person rather than an organisation. It would be preferable to > avoid getting in a situation where non-organsation resource holders > would be prevented from engaging in inter-RIR transfers even though the > resource-specific policy would allow for that. > > Therefore I would suggest using even more general language, such as > ?resource holder?/?resource holder to be? or ?entity?. > > > **** I think this is a very good point, thanks. Sandra > > 2) The proposal seeks to add the following paragraphs to ripe-606 > section 5.5: > > ?When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE > NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the > receiving LIR. > > When Internet number resources are transferred from another RIR, the > RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfil any requirements of the > sending RIR.? > > These additions seem completely redundant to me, as the new policy > document says pretty much the same thing in sections 2.0 and 3.0. > > (Also, ?fulfill? is incorrectly spelled.) > > *** Thanks for pointing out this redundancy issue. > *** Let me look into it with Marco and the Chairs, as to whether we > *** would add the text or were making a statement of fact. > *** Agree on spelling of fulfill. Thanks. Sandra > > 3) Also in ripe-606 section 5.5 the proposal seeks to add the following: > > ?If resources are transferred as legacy resources, the RIPE NCC will > apply the legacy policy when accepting these resources.? > > This statement seems out of place to me: > > * ripe-606 does not apply to legacy resources, a fact which is implied > by the new paragraph as well. The statement therefore voids itself. > > * Even if disregarding the above, ripe-606 only covers IPv4. Legacy > resources also include ASNs. So if the resource is to be transferred is > a legacy ASN, this transfer would be regulated by a piece of policy text > located in the non-legacy IPv4 policy....which would to me be a > completely nonsensical outcome. > > IMHO, the only sensible place to locate a statement that essentially > says "legacy resources are governed by the legacy policy" is in, you > guessed it, the legacy policy itself (ripe-605). We're in luck, because > it already does just that. :-) > > *** I am not sure we will add that statement to the policy or if it is > *** just a statement of fact: that legacy policy will apply, as you > say. > *** Let me check with Marco, as what you say makes total sense to > *** me. Sandra > > So in summary, all of the additions 2014-05 seeks to do in ripe-605 seem > redundant or out of place to me, accomplishing no actual policy change > beyond adding bloat. Am I missing something? If not, I'd much rather > prefer that ripe-605 is left alone by 2014-05. > > *** Yes the intention is not to add bloat but perhaps to re-confirm what > > *** is already there. Thanks a ton for your feedback, and of course for > *** your support for the intent. > > *** Sandra > > Tore > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 34, Issue 15 > ************************************************* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140917/b86e2b8e/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]