[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 concluded (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Dear AP WG,

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:59:19AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> Proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification", is now in Concluding Phase.
[..]
> Any objection must be made by 13 February 2018 and must be supported by an explanation.
> 
> If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus.


There was quite a bit of discussion in the Last Call, which is unusual,
and led to some more discussions between Marco, Sander and me how to
evaluate these.

We've decided that there is rough consensus to go forward and implement
the policy, because the discussions raised did not bring in new objections
to the policy itself, or issues with the policy process being followed(*).

So, the NCC will start implementing the proposal next week.


That said, some good points were raised

 - Kai Siering reminded me that I need to be a bit less sloppy when 
   summarizing objections raised - I should have spent a few more words
   pointing to the fact that the NCC's interpretation of the existing
   IPv6 PI policy has been brought up number of times (by the NCC RS)
   to the APWG, explaining why they interpret the "no sub-assignment"
   clause the way they are, and asking for guidance from the WG - which,
   at no point, brought up the response "single addresses by RA are good!"
   (so while the WG wasn't fully happy with the *outcome*, nobody challenged
   the *interpretation*)

 - Jordi Palet found a mismatch between IA and policy text, and there was
   discussion about interpretation of policy text, policy intent, and IA
   when in doubt.  Which is, undoubtly, quite a burden for new applicants
   to figure out what "is OK" and "what is not OK" - so the NCC volunteered
   to write a guidance page with examples to help explain in more words and 
   easier terms.  Of course I'll expect the working group to scrutinize 
   this page very thoroughly :-)

 - Jordi Palet also brought up the issue that the PDP does not have an
   "the WG chairs decide to extend the review phase" arrow in its state
   diagram - it does not.  Formally, one would need to close the review
   phase, declare "not enough input", declare "the next version of the 
   policy proposal has the same text, and we solicit input *again*", and
   start a new review phase.  Which is lots of overhead, so we've been
   doing this ("this" being "extend a phase *if not enough input received*")
   for many years now.

   (Incidentially, the anti-abuse WG had to do the same thing for their
   current 2017-02 proposal - "not enough clear guidance to declare a
   result either way", thus, "extend")


As soon as this is formally incorporated into the new policy text, I
welcome a new round of discussion about the IPv6 PI policy (as stated in 
the review phase) - ideally, with no formal text to start with, but as a
real *discussion* on "where do we want to go?".  Formal policy text can
come afterwards after there is some sort of rough agreement on the general
direction.

I'll reserve time for this on the agenda for Marseilles.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled 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 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180316/ea2a66e0/attachment.sig>