[address-policy-wg] Best Operatonal Practices Registration/Contact Information - WAS:: 2023-04 Discussion scope

Dear WG!

I would like to propose that we start working on *a "Best current 
operational Practices" Document for "Registration Information/Contact 
Information".*

The idea is that the document is done in a similar manner to the "Best 
Current Operational Practice for Operators: IPv6 prefix assignment for 
end-users"(https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690).

Why do it this way, instead of alter the policy? I do not belive we 
would ever be able to accuratly cover every possible scenario (without 
introducing a lot of annoyance/complexity/overhead).
However..having a guide/idea to help community members with common 
scenarios/inspiration for the own documentation - makes a lot of sense.

Kind regards,

Sebastian


On 1/12/24 08:56, Alex Le Heux wrote:
> Dear Working Group,
>
> During the discussion about AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments the argument has been raised that this proposal would substantially change the registration requirements for end-user assignments in the RIPE DB and the discussion has been going around in circles ever since.
>
> We would like to point out the following:
>
>  From the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis:
>
> [...]
>
> Acceptance of this proposal will not change the fact that the RIPE NCC cannot enforce which contact details members add to their IPv4 PA assignments in the RIPE Database; this will remain their decision.
>
> [...]
>
> As well as:
>
> It is fact that the RIPE NCC has interpreted the current policy to not require a PA Assignment in the RIPE DB to include the actual name and email address of the end-user since at leas the late 1990s. Registering a PA Assignment with something like "CUSTOMER-1234" and an email address pointing to the LIR has been acceptable for all this time.
>
>
>
> In its impact analysis the RIPE NCC has indicated that this proposal does not change this interpretation.
>
> It should therefore be clear that 2023-04 does not in fact change anything regarding how end-user details will actually be registered in PA Assignments.
>
> However, is has been argued that this interpretation is wrong and that PA Assignments in the RIPE DB must include the actual end-user details. And even though this is out of scope for the 2023-04 discussion, it is still something that is worth resolving. As changing this interpretation would be a major departure of many years of accepted practice and potentially involve updating thousands of RIPE DB objects, we feel this discussion would be best served by an independent policy proposal that clarifies the issue and would like to invite the working group to enter one.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alex Le Heux, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20240112/c1938e94/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0xCB3F9792B5ACD96C.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3935 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20240112/c1938e94/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20240112/c1938e94/attachment.sig>