[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Daniel Velea
elvis at velea.eu
Tue Sep 1 00:32:57 CEST 2015
wow Nick, thanks for the diff. I have not had time to carefully ready all the documents, so, this reply is only to your comments. I'll send an other e-mail If I find anything else worth mentioning once I get the time to compare all the current policy documents to the new policy proposal. On 01/09/15 00:22, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 > first of all, a large thank-you for handling this policy aggregation. This > will make things a lot easier for organisations to understand how RIPE > transfer policy works. Although policy reworking like this is completely > thankless, it's important to do. big thanks, Erik > I've gone down through the new policy and compared it against the old. As > expected, there is plenty of optimisation going on, but optimisation means > changes and changes mean that we need to understand what's been changed. > > Enumerating some of the changes: > > "Resources are excluded from transfers when RIPE Policies mandate their > return to the RIPE NCC.": this is completely new text. approve. I would like this to be clarified. I don't recall having any policies mandating a return of a resource to the RIPE NCC. > > ipv6 transfer policy: added "Transfers must be reflected in the RIPE > Database. Transfers can be on a permanent or non-permanent basis.". approve. +1 > > ipv6 transfer policy: removed "The block that is to be re-allocated must > not be smaller than the minimum allocation size at the time of > re-allocation". for the record, this is an interesting consequence of > section 2.1, paragraph 3. I.e. no point in repeating policy that already > exists. ok > > asn transfer policy: added "scarce resources ... cannot be transferred by > the resource holder within 24 months". I don't disagree with this, nor > with the genericisation of this transfer restriction. I do not disagree with this change. I would, as Sacha said, prefer to discuss it in a separate policy proposal. > all policies: the tightening of the policy text in section 2.1 concerning > who's currently responsible for the resource ("the original resource holder > ... policies are applied") is good. > > asn + ipv6 policies: added statement that ripe policies apply for the > duration of transfer and during the transfer process itself - to align with > the ipv4 policy. This is good, but other RIRs may claim that their > policies apply during the transfer process. Would it be worth discussing > at a higher level whether there should be a global policy for which RIR > policy applies during the transfer process? I also believe that as long as a resource is registered in a registry's db, that registry's policy must apply. > > all policies: "Resources are excluded from transfers when RIPE Policies > mandate their return to the RIPE NCC". Mmm. I'd be careful about > inserting something like this. Can you explain the intention and the > meaning of this clause? same as above.. I'd like this to be explained. > > all policies: removed statement about publishing stats on non-approved > transfers. Whoa, what's going on here? Not ok. IMHO, aggregated stats should still exist for non-approved transfers. > Nick > > regards, elvis
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]