[Apwg-ipv6-papi] [pdo] last changes?

Sat Sep 14 17:13:18 CEST 2013

Hi everyone,

again, sorry for the lack of presence in the past few days. I have been 
very busy setting up various procedures in our company.

@Olaf - sorry I did not reply to the e-mail from the 11th..

I managed to find a few hours today and worked on the document taking 
into account all your ideas :)

I my mind I had the following:
- remove the idea of portable addresses, allocations are allocations.
- remove the crazy idea of PIR, not sure what I was smoking that day :)
- define the EU
- re-define the End Site

Changes:
- added 2.5 End User (EU) definition
- updated 2.6 - End Site definition
- moved 5.3 (Allocations made by the RIR) to 5.0
(I think it adds a bit more structure to the policy this way)
- updated 5.1.2 to clarify what is the initial allocation size for LIR 
and for the EU
- updated 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 (removed the idea of portable allocation)
- updated "LIR's customer" with EU in various places
- clarified where we use IR, LIR, EU or End Site

I'm hoping that this time the update turned out quite good.

The document is attached.

cheers,
elvis

On 9/11/13 1:02 PM, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
> Dear Daniel, Dear Elvis
>
> I could edit file while I travel home by train.
>
> Should I take the last document from Marco? Or did you change everything on Google Drive?
>
> Cheers, Olaf
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Stolpe [mailto:stolpe at resilans.se]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 11. September 2013 12:53
> To: Elvis Velea
> Cc: Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG; pdo at ripe.net; Marco Schmidt; apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] [pdo] last changes?
>
>
> I'm currently not sure about what time I might have. Probably not very much unfortunatly.
>
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Elvis Velea wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> ok, introducing a new term gave a heart attack to Gert.. that usually
>> means it's a bad idea ;)
>>
>> I will read the feedback each of you has provided and will come back
>> with a revised document ;)
>>
>> However, these days I am very very busy, so I am not sure I will be
>> able to find time to revise it by Friday.. I will try as much as I can.
>>
>> I like the definitions from Marco, can we add him to the list of
>> proposers ? (joke)
>>
>> If any of you has time by Friday to work on these changes, let me know..
>>
>> If not, I'll try on Friday or during the weekend to come up with the
>> last (this time I mean it) version.
>>
>> cheers,
>> elvis
>>
>> On 9/10/13 2:48 PM, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>>> 1)
>>>> Definition "End User (EU)" with a clear demarcation to "End Site". End users are the organisations that can receive sub-allocations or portable allocations. End sites are LIRs and EU locations of local networks/customers (like in your graph section 2).
>>>
>>> +1, that's a good proposal and a better way.
>>>
>>>> 2)
>>>> So why not simply write "LIR and EU" when something applies for
>>>> both, and only "LIR" or "EU" if something applies only for one type?
>>>
>>> +1, that's also a good idea.
>>>
>>> What are you meaning, Elvis?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Olaf
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: apwg-ipv6-papi-bounces at ripe.net
>>> [mailto:apwg-ipv6-papi-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt
>>> Sent: Dienstag, 10. September 2013 10:17
>>> To: Gert Doering
>>> Cc: pdo at ripe.net; apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] [pdo] last changes?
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> First of all I think the topics that you discuss are too relevant to just implement them on the fly. The risk of inconsistencies in the proposal is just too big.
>>>
>>> Also I checked with the webmasters and they need some time to re-do all the pages, especially the policy text. They need to have enough notification time to schedule their work as their are also busy with all the upcoming meetings (MENOG, ENOG, RIPE).
>>>
>>>
>>> May I propose the following:
>>>
>>> - the proposal gets back to you, you all agree what to edit and then
>>> send the final version back to the RIPE NCC
>>> - if you wish Comms make another review of the changes
>>> - our webmaster get the final version and can set up everything and
>>> then we publish :)
>>>
>>> If you agree during this week on the final version I think it is realistic that we can publish (early) next week. Then the discussion phase would end perfectly timed during the RIPE meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the following two issues spotted by you should be solved before publishing:
>>>
>>> 1)
>>> Definition "End User (EU)" with a clear demarcation to "End Site". End users are the organisations that can receive sub-allocations or portable allocations. End sites are LIRs and EU locations of local networks/customers (like in your graph section 2).
>
>>>
>>> 2)
>>> Currently "IR" is often used when it should read "LIRs and End Users"
>>> (for example in section 5) which could lead to confusion as one hand
>>> RIRs are also IRs and on the other hand it is not clear that EUs are
>>> IRs (and should they actually always seen as Internet Registry?)
>>>
>>> As Gert mentioned it might be too much to introduce now also new
>>> terms in this policy proposal (you will change the IPv6 world anyhow ;-) ).
>>>
>>> So why not simply write "LIR and EU" when something applies for both,
>>> and only "LIR" or "EU" if something applies only for one type?
>>>
>>>
>>> If you choose this way then we can keep the biggest part of the
>>> current version, only extended by a more clear EU definition and replace "IR"
>>> where it is applicable.
>>>
>>> This would be my practical approach.
>>> (for example Comms only would need to review the EU definition)
>>>
>>> But again, you have the last word as this is your baby :)
>>>
>>>
>>> I've attached you the latest reviewed proposal version again. Do all
>>> the changes you would like to do and agree on it. Then you send me
>>> your final version back.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Marco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/9/13 9:38 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:20:53PM +0200, Elvis Velea wrote:
>>>>> Introducing the PIR - Portable Internet Registry \o/
>>>> Uh, what?
>>>>
>>>> And - no, let's not go there.  RIR and LIR are well-defined terms
>>>> and well-understood, introducing something that sounds similar
>>>> enough to be confused with it while not being part of the "IR tree structure"
>>>> would need quite a few *good* arguments to convince me.
>>>>
>>>>> @Marco, please ask Comms to update the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> - add
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.5 Portable Internet Registry (PIR)
>>>>>
>>>>> A Portable Internet Registry is an IR which can request (via a
>>>>> Sponsoring LIR) a portable allocation from the RIR. The PIR
>>>>> sub-allocates address space to the users of the network services
>>>>> that it provides.
>>>> If I have anything to say here, please let's *not* do that.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I think we should not use the term "IR" for "something that
>>>> acts like a LIR but is not".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, where is "portable allocation" coming from?  All allocations
>>>> are "portable", by definition...
>>>>
>>>> Gert Doering
>>>>            -- APWG chair
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Apwg-ipv6-papi mailing list
>>> Apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
>>> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/apwg-ipv6-papi
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Kind regards, Elvis Velea
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Apwg-ipv6-papi mailing list
>> Apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
>> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/apwg-ipv6-papi
>>
>>
>
> mvh
>
> Daniel Stolpe
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________
> Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
> Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
> Box 13 054							      556741-1193
> 103 02 Stockholm
>

-- 
Kind regards, Elvis Velea
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IPv6-policyproposal-v1reviewed3-2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 182009 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/apwg-ipv6-papi/attachments/20130914/094492a1/attachment-0001.bin 