Draft minute of mtg yesterday

D R A F T      D R A F T      D R A F T      D R A F T      D R A F T
 
Minute of Local IR WG Meeting at RIPE-18, May 1994
 
 
X.Y  Local IR Working Group (D Karrenberg)
 
Chair:  D Karrenberg
Scribe: M Norris
 
X.Y.1  Opening
An agenda circulated beforehand was agreed.  The minutes of the
meeting held during RIPE-17 in January 1994 were agreed.
 
X.Y.2  Election of New Chairman
D Karrenberg explained why he had announced his resignation as
chairman.  The efficacy of the WG might be questioned given that
the Director of the NCC presided over a group drawn from the
membership of RIPE, which set the agenda of the NCC.  In addition,
the workload of the NCC was now so onerous that all other activities
had to be reviewed.
 
Following discussion, the meeting unanimously expressed its complete
satisfaction in the chairmanship by D Karrenberg of the Local IR
Working Group.  The Group had found the close linkage with the
NCC to be of great benefit, and that this had never impeded its
work nor imposed any limitations on its freedom of action.  The
meeting reluctantly accepted the resignation of the chairman.
 
M Norris agreed to act as chairman, with effect from the end of the
meeting.
 
X.Y.3  European Registry Report by the NCC
D Karrenberg reported that, from experience, it may be that enterprise
networks, such as those belonging to large multi- or trans-national
organisations, needed their own IP registries.  As a rule, such
organisations did not get delegated address space.  However, coordination
between local and regional registries was important.
 
X.Y.4  Reports of Significant Events at Local Registries
Question: In light of renumbering caused by CIDR, what should be
          done with returned addresses?
 
It was agreed that such addresses could be returned, and welcome, to
any European IR.  Such IRs would return addresses to the NCC.  If
the addresses could be aggregated, they would be re-used, otherwise
they would be returned to IANA.
 
Question: Will someone write a paper on why it is a good idea to
          return unused addresses?
 
Some discussion, but no takers.
 
It was agreed that incidents of note should be reported to the list
and to the NCC, and not reported only at WG meetings.
 
Incidents were reported of applications being rejected in Europe
but accepted on re-application to other regional registries.  The
group expressed concern at the disparity in the criteria applied
by RIPE and InterNIC registries.
 
Action 18.1  D Karrenberg
             Convey RIPE's concern at this disparity to the InterNIC.
 
X.Y.5  Standard IP Application Form
There was a discussion of multiple applications to different registries
by the same organisation, or by different components of the same
organisation.  It was agreed that the standard form should be revised
to guard against such abuses.  The following changes should be made:
 
*  Indicate that any statements made in the form could be used in
   consideration of future applications
 
*  Applicants should indicate their parent organisation and its
   assigned address space, if any
 
*  Applicants to state whether they had made any applications for
   IP addresses in Europe or elsewhere
 
Action 18.2     NCC
                Draft new standard form in light of above recommendations
                for discussion on the list.
 
X.Y.6  Default Range of AS Numbers
D Karrenberg had asked IANA for a default range of AS numbers, but this
had been refused.
 
[ Yves, can you please fill in the text of the point you made here?     ]
[ I apologise for not minuting it properly.                             ]
 
X.Y.7  Report from Local IR Workshop
The workshop held before the start of RIPE-18 had been well attended,
numbers exceeding those who had booked and the number of lunch
equivalents.
 
RFC1597, concerning the allocation of private IP addresses, was noted.
 
Common errors with the administration of reverse DNS zones had been
summarised.
 
Action 18.3     NCC
                Investigate monthly publication of error files on
                reverse zone files, a la host count.
 
 
X.Y.8  Funding of and Charging for Local Registry Service
The meeting agreed that these were important issues and that the
group should make recommendations as soon as possible.
 
Action 18.4     M Norris
                Initiate discussion on the list and aim to
                summarise by way of a draft recommendation.
 
X.Y.9  Assignment Statistics
W Woeber and W Huber had suggested means of representing address
space assignment status.  This would be discussed on the list.