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

Fri Mar 16 15:20:11 CET 2018

Hi Gert, all,

I agree with your summary, and also understand the point that is better to have "something" now and improve it.

In fact, yesterday I expressed the same view in anti-abuse, even against my previous opinion that we should do it "right" in a single "step".

Consequently, in view of improving this now "adopted" policy, this afternoon I will work on this a submit a possible improvement proposal to it.

I think I will also consider sending a proposal for update this PDP detail.

Thanks!

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
Fecha: viernes, 16 de marzo de 2018, 15:13
Para: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [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

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.