[ncc-services-wg] RIPE49 - NCC Services WG Draft Minutes

Dear All,

Please see draft minutes from the NCC Services Working Group at RIPE  
49.  Please
send any questions, comments or clarifications to Kurtis, myself or this
mailing list.

regards,

Bijal
----

RIPE 49 Meeting
RIPE NCC Services Working Group
Date: Tuesday 21 September 2004
Time: 14.00 - 15.30
Date: Thursday 23 September 2004
Time: 14.00 - 15.30
Location: Medici Ballroom
-----------------------------------------------------
A. Administrative Matters (5 min)
- Welcome
- Select a scribe
Nathalie Dougall (RIPE NCC)
- Distribute participants list
- Finalise agenda
- Approve minutes from RIPE 48:
http://www.ripe.net/wg/ncc-services/r48-minutes.html
Minutes approved.
-----------------------------------------------------
B. RIPE NCC Update - Axel Pawlik (10-15 min)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49- 
services-ncc.pdf

*Updates and highlights
*Preview of Activity Plan 2005
*Training Services Department
*Membership Liaison
*Resigning of Standard Service Agreements
* Communications
*New Projects
*Software Engineering
*Operations

"Membership Focus is the Name of the Game" - RIPE NCC
-----------------------------------------------------
C. RIPE NCC Activity Plan 2005 - Axel Pawlik (10-15 min)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49- 
services-ncc.pdf

*Member Service Desk
*Membership Survey 2005
*New Training Methods
*Anti-SPAM
*More K Rootserver anycast
*AP2005
-----------------------------------------------------
D. Anti-Spam Measures at NCC - Jim Reid (10-15 min)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49- 
services-spam.pdf

- Jim is not representing an LIR nor is he a member, but has been  
getting spam from
the NCC.  He has discussed this with some RIPE NCC Hostmasters and  
software people.
The spam issue is also not good from NCC's point of view and Jim wants  
to tackle
this by seeing a better policy in dealing with spam.
- Jim gets spam, then replies to the NCC and is told to contact his  
ISP. He finds
this response unsatisfactory and annoying because some spam originates  
from the RIPE
NCC, and not necessarily from the ISP.
- Jim feels that the problem should be stopped before it gets to his  
network and
costs him.
- Some NCC servers use different programs i.e. Spam Assassin, Blacklist  
etc.
However, the policy is unclear.
- Not clear which anti-spam policies are in place regarding the  
different mailing
lists because it depends on the server that it is sitting on.

Is there a Policy Vacuum?
Documentation/policy and info on the NCC site is difficult to find.   
Information
should be made more visible.

Jim asks NCC staff if they could document and suggest improvements.

Kurtis asks whether there is any comment on this?
Kurtis asks the NCC to come back with some proposals for the mailing  
list and at the
next meting.

Daniel makes jabber comment from Webmaster:  there is text on the  
website:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/about/maillists.html

Andrei Robachevsky (RIPE NCC):  I think you raised an important point,  
as spam
causes problems for the NCC as well, and this is partly because of  
policy issues.
For example: even for group mailing lists, they are quiet and free from  
spam as we
do "human" spam filtering. i.e. only subscribers can post to the list,  
which reduces
a huge amount of spam.  We are now making classification of mailing  
lists and we are
developing a consistent policy with regards to spam.

Jim Reid (DNS MODA):  That would be good.  Sometimes my mail gets held  
up if I'm not
a member of other working group lists.  Another interesting issue is  
statistics:  it
would be nice to have the information of how much spam is arriving on  
your servers
every day and how much is being thrown away. This would be helpful to  
know, in order
to put things in context.

Andrei Robachevsky:  we can make the statistical poll
Kurtis:  leave it with Andrei to get back to the mailing list and will  
discuss at
next meeting in Stockholm

Kurtis thanks Jim for making proposal and mentions that when the  
Services Working
Group was set up after the RIPE meeting in Barcelona, this was the idea  
- that
members of the community would present to the WG.

14:44 session closes.
-----------------------------------------------------
(Thursday:)

E. RIPE NCC Billing Procedures and Charging Scheme - Jochem de Ruig  
(10-15 min)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49- 
services-billing.pdf

*General Billing Information
*Billing Procedure
www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/billing-2004.html

*Billing 2004
*Outlook for 2005

Comments:

- Denesh Bhabuta (Aexiomus):  We are told that if you have a VAT  
number, then it
shouldn't appear on the bill, but when we attend meetings, it appears  
on the bill
and its extremely difficult to claim this back.
- Jochem de Ruig (RIPE NCC): - in principle, in the Netherlands the VAT  
is included
in your meeting fee and you can claim that back from the Dutch tax  
authorities if
you want to.
- Denesh Bhabuta (Aexiomus):  This is difficult, but if you can do it  
with the
membership fees, then there's no reason why you can't do it with the  
meeting fees.
- Jochem de Ruig (RIPE NCC):  Yes, I wish I could do it.  What we say  
to the Dutch
tax authorities is that the service fee is an international  
transaction, which is
why we can shift the VAT from us to you.  But with a meeting that is in  
the
Netherlands, it is clear that the service is done in the NL, so we are  
not allowed
by the tax authorities to shift the VAT to you, so I can't put on the  
receipt saying
"VAT shifted" and that you submit it here locally.  Unfortunately.

Presentation on the Charging Scheme and the Scoring Algorithm
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49- 
services-billing.pdf

*Charging Scheme process
*Scoring Algorithm 2004
• Size determined on basis of 2 variables, namely:
         - Prefix of the allocation/assignment
         - Age of the allocation/assignment

14:40 Jochem ends.  No questions
-----------------------------------------------------
F. RIPE NCC Training Team activities and developments - Rumy Kanis (20  
min)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49- 
services-training.pdf

*Outline of courses:  LIR, Routing Registry and DNSSec
*Seminars and presentations - We have started offering presentations at
conferences/meetings - please send requests!
*Training in 2004
*Training in 2005
*Developing Training Services
*Hosting
-----------------------------------------------------
G. Feedback from Recent LIR Mergers - Kurtis (10-15 min)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49- 
services-mergers.pdf

A presentation on how LIR's work with the RIPE NCC with respect to  
mergers - we
wanted to find out their experiences in dealing with the NCC on this  
issue.
Kurtis outlines the presentation and emphasises that the NCC kept the  
information
received from the LIR's confidential.

The NCC contacted all LIR's that have completed mergers in the last 6  
months.

• 27 members
• 22% response rate - all positive
• 7.5% had ideas for improvement, namely:

         • Provide documentation repository
         • Provide a free IP admin tool to new LIRs
         • Re-structure audit process
         • Promote and encourage consultancy firms to new LIRs

Comments:
- Joao Damas (ISC) - It would seem more reasonable to me to have the  
NCC publish a
well defined interface to their systems for people on the outside,  
whether private
for own use or open source for everyone to use.
- Kurtis:  who are interested in this?  No hands shown...How many  
people think the
NCC should develop a tool like this that should be fully available?  No  
one
responds...
- Kurtis:  How many people use tools, other than an acsci file, to keep  
track of
address space?  - 10 people show their hands.  How many tools like this  
are written
by yourselves?  A lot of response...
- Randy Bush (IIJ):  I'd like to explain why I think these two seem to  
be in
conflict, but are not...  These tools are a small part of our toolset  
and are
integrated with the rest of them.  So you are trying to produce a  
standard one that
is not going to fit in with the rest of our puzzle.
- Kurtis:  Would it be more useful to have a standardised date format  
tool?
- Randy Bush (IIJ):  To exchange what with whom?
- Kurtis - If you are merging LIR's you need to take the data you  
have...
- Randy Bush (IIJ):  I don't have any plans to merge.  It would be  
useful to have
this if I could use it today, but to justify spending the money in case  
there is a
merger in the future would be more difficult to sell to my manager.
-Kurtis promises to take this discussion and ideas to the mailing list  
as there
appears to be some interest, though it will take a lot of work to get  
this
developed.

Jabber question:  Someone asks whether a standard format will actually  
help with
mergers?

- Kurtis:  The feedback was from people who had done mergers, and they  
said that it
would help.  My own experience is that I think it would help in a  
merger process.
-----------------------------------------------------
H. Topic's for Discussion - Kurtis Lindqvist
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49- 
services-discussion.pdf
Kurtis will present this as "himself" and as general member of the  
community.

Observation of how the process of activity planning and how the  
Services Working
group is progressing.

*Timing of input to the Activity Plan and Budget

Rob Blokzijl (RIPE Chair):  I think it’s important to have a  
well-structured way for
this group to produce input for the AP.  The difference between 3  
meetings per year
(up until now) and 2 meetings per year, which we will try out next  
year, is the
January meeting.  At the January meeting - no one thinks of the AP as  
it was just
agreed at the end of the previous year.  The May meeting was the one  
where, in
timely fashion we could bring ideas for AP for following year and the  
fall meeting
in September is last opportunity where we can bring ideas for next  
years AP.  So, in
practice, not much has really changed from 3 meetings per year to 2  
meetings per
year.  We only miss the January meeting, where people think that the AP  
is for
"later" this year, anyway.

- Kurtis:  if we have 3 meetings per year we would have the opportunity  
to make
process better.  I do not want to reopen the discussion, it is just an  
observation.

Rob Blokzijl (RIPE Chair):  I want to remind all that proposing changes  
and
additions doesn't have a formal date and can happen at any moment of  
the year.
Anyone can generate input to folks who have final responsibility to  
draft AP.  This
can happen via mailing lists or working groups, for example.   
Face-to-face meetings
generate more interest.  Channels are not being closed or narrowed.

End discussion.

*Proposal:  Increase focus of work
A new RIPE meeting plan?

The first part of week could be for operational content and the second  
part of the
week could be used for policy discussions.  It would mean that people  
could better
focus on topics and attend what they are interested in.  Don't know  
what this would
do to attendance numbers though!
- Rob Blokzijl (RIPE Chair):  I fully support this, and find it a  
valuable exercise
to develop this further.  We should go through all the agendas of the  
WGs and the
EOF etc. and see how this week would have worked with such a framework.  
Based on
that, we can try to design something and maybe try it out at the next  
RIPE meeting.
It needs careful thought and preparation, but I see the advantages.

- Randy Bush (IIJ): operations of what?
- Kurtis: You know what I mean.
- Randy - No I don't.  I find very little operational content here for  
what I
consider to be operations, as an ISP.
- Kurtis:  I don't disagree, but if you look at the charter of the  
working groups,
there is a difference between Address policy and the Services Working  
Group.
- Rob Blokzijl (RIPE Chair):  On Randy's comment.  It would be great to  
have more
operational stuff in, so operators do something!
- Joao Damas (ISC):  I am just confused.  I thought I was attending a  
RIPE meeting,
not a RIPE NCC meeting. I heard you say that decision to go from 3 to 2  
meetings per
year was based on the NCC membership.
- Kurtis:  Comment was from NCC Membership Survey.  It was discussed at  
length in
the plenary, and it is a discussion that belongs in the plenary, not  
here.
- Joao Damas (ISC):  That is exactly my next point.  If this is a RIPE  
meeting, then
this discussion should take place in the plenary, not the NCC Services  
Working
Group.  A lot of people that come here have no interaction with the  
RIPE NCC and as
time goes by, the purpose is to meet people, do business and eventually  
learn of
operations and hopefully that is part of the content that develops  
more.  So maybe
if there is no need to have 3 meetings per year, we can actually follow  
the NANOG
model, have a shorter meeting and skip Address policy?  But again, this  
should be
discussed somewhere else if this is the RIPE meeting.

No other comments

Y. Open Microphone

No other business.

Z. AOB

None.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 14389 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20041108/46d91499/attachment.bin>