From nigel at titley.com Tue Apr 2 11:12:04 2013 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:12:04 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "Yearly list of services by RIPE" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <515AA0E4.7000107@titley.com> On 29/03/2013 23:58, Richard Hartmann wrote: > No update is necessary to this proposal but as the 26th of March has > passed, I would appreciate a short update from Nigel. > > As Nigel agreed that it makes sense to codify this either way, I would > like to continue with this proposal normally. > > During the board meeting this was indeed discussed, and the board, mindful of the fact that the Activity Plan and Budget document has already begun to evolve into the requested direction, has encouraged management to further continue in the direction of more transparency, especially regarding a full list of services currently being offered, and also to expand on plans to offer new services or stop services from being offered. In my personal capacity I'm still to be convinced that this is a suitable subject for a policy proposal (being more in the purview of the membership rather than the community). Nigel From nick at netability.ie Tue Apr 2 11:48:34 2013 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:48:34 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "Yearly list of services by RIPE" In-Reply-To: <515AA0E4.7000107@titley.com> References: <515AA0E4.7000107@titley.com> Message-ID: <515AA972.3080905@netability.ie> On 02/04/2013 10:12, Nigel Titley wrote: > In my personal capacity I'm still to be convinced that this is a suitable > subject for a policy proposal (being more in the purview of the membership > rather than the community). me too - this is definitely ripe ncc gm material. Would it be appropriate to schedule a couple of minutes to discuss this at the next GM? Nick From nigel at titley.com Tue Apr 2 12:13:58 2013 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:13:58 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "Yearly list of services by RIPE" In-Reply-To: <515AA972.3080905@netability.ie> References: <515AA0E4.7000107@titley.com> <515AA972.3080905@netability.ie> Message-ID: <515AAF66.5000901@titley.com> On 02/04/2013 10:48, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 02/04/2013 10:12, Nigel Titley wrote: >> In my personal capacity I'm still to be convinced that this is a suitable >> subject for a policy proposal (being more in the purview of the membership >> rather than the community). > me too - this is definitely ripe ncc gm material. Would it be appropriate > to schedule a couple of minutes to discuss this at the next GM? I'm sure we could, especially as we've had the first activity plan in the new format and could usefully discuss what the membership think of it Nigel From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Apr 2 13:49:59 2013 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:49:59 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Pre-PDP discussion: "Yearly list of services by RIPE" In-Reply-To: <515AAF66.5000901@titley.com> References: <515AA0E4.7000107@titley.com> <515AA972.3080905@netability.ie> <515AAF66.5000901@titley.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: > me too - this is definitely ripe ncc gm material. Would it be >> appropriate >> to schedule a couple of minutes to discuss this at the next GM? >> > I'm sure we could, especially as we've had the first activity plan in the > new format and could usefully discuss what the membership think of it > I don't think I will manage to make it to Dublin, but I will gladly participate remotely if possible; by proxy or otherwise. Again, if some or all of these proposals don't end up in PDP but still get things moving into the intended direction, I am more than willing to toss them. They are a means, not an end in and as of themselves. -- Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kranjbar at ripe.net Wed Apr 3 14:35:27 2013 From: kranjbar at ripe.net (Kaveh Ranjbar) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:35:27 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [news] Phase 1 Update: Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database Message-ID: [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, Phase 1 of ripe-563 "Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database" is now being implemented, as announced on 19 March 2013. According to ripe-563, all resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC will need to have an abuse contact email address included in their RIPE Database registration. During the first six months of implementation (phase 1), all Local Internet Registries (LIRs) must add an abuse contact attribute ("abuse-c:") to their LIR's ORGANISATION object to provide abuse contact information for all of the allocated address space under their LIR. Since the initial announcement two weeks ago, we are pleased to report that 24.8% of the RIPE NCC's allocated IPv4 address space is already covered with an abuse contact. More statistics will be sent to the RIPE Anti-Abuse Working Group mailing list. In phase 1, we will send notifications to LIRs that haven't added abuse contact information to their LIR's ORGANISATION object. If this information is not added by the LIR by the end of phase 1, we will automatically add the LIR's contact email address (which is already publicly listed at: ) as their abuse contact. LIRs can always change this information as needed. More information on the implementation plan, including phase 2 (covering PI space and ASNs) is available on RIPE Labs at: ------------------------------- How to add "abuse-c" ------------------------------- An explanation of how to add "abuse-c:" to an LIR's ORGANISATION object as well as how to fine-tune abuse contact information for sub-allocations and assignments is outlined here: Please kindly consider adding abuse contact information as soon as possible to the ORGANISATION object(s) you control or maintain in the RIPE Database. Kind Regards, Kaveh Ranjbar, RIPE NCC Database Group Manager -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Thu Apr 4 17:16:38 2013 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Lindqvist Kurt Erik) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:16:38 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Status of 2012-07 Message-ID: <56B59EB6-98D0-4CDF-95D6-F7D956793F7B@kurtis.pp.se> All, We wanted to provide an update on the next steps for 2012-07. The document will be moved to the next Phase (Review phase), this will be done with a version 3 of the document. The changes between version 2 and version 3 are non-significant, and we believe they do not justify a complete re-run of Phase 2. The changes to the document are in-line with the requests made by the community. Last, the RIPE NCC are working on the Impact study for this proposal and will post this to the list as soon as it's available. Best regards, Kurtis & Bijal From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Fri Apr 5 12:15:35 2013 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:15:35 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Status of 2012-07 In-Reply-To: <56B59EB6-98D0-4CDF-95D6-F7D956793F7B@kurtis.pp.se> References: <56B59EB6-98D0-4CDF-95D6-F7D956793F7B@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: On 4 Apr 2013, at 16:16, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote: > We wanted to provide an update on the next steps for 2012-07. The document will be moved to the next Phase (Review phase), this will be done with a version 3 of the document. The changes between version 2 and version 3 are non-significant, and we believe they do not justify a complete re-run of Phase 2. The changes to the document are in-line with the requests made by the community. Thanks, Kurtis. That announcement is helpful. /Niall From alexb at ripe.net Tue Apr 9 14:07:19 2013 From: alexb at ripe.net (Alex Band) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:07:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses Message-ID: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, One of the goals of the RIPE NCC is to simplify and streamline our infrastructure and internal processes. Over the years, we have taken great strides in making our infrastructure easier to maintain and more cost effective. However, there are a couple of legacy scripts and tools that are entangled deeply in our workflows and are very hard to phase out on the short term. One of these legacy tools is our ticketing system. The infrastructure we need and the resources it costs is disproportionate to the amount of value that it offers. Migrating away from it in one go is proving to be very complicated. This is why we have decided on a phased approach. One element of the ticketing system that will be affected in the first phase is PGP Authentication: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/contact/pgp-authentication Signing emails from hostmaster at ripe.net, lir-help at ripe.net, new-lir at ripe.net and enum at ripe.net is one of the first pieces that we need to remove in order to phase out all the legacy software. While we realise that it is a best practice to sign such emails and are aware of the value it offers, we are planning to discontinue email signing from just these addresses starting 1 January 2014. It will allow us to phase out a part of our infrastructure that makes future migration a lot easier, while saving cost in the mean time. Please note that this change will not affect email interaction with the RIPE Database. As soon as we have replaced our current ticketing system, we will re-evaluate email signing. As we may have overlooked some potential issues that certain members of our Community might have if we discontinue this functionality, naturally we are open to your feedback. Kind regards, Alex Band Product Manager RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Apr 9 14:16:54 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:16:54 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20130409121654.GH51699@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 02:07:19PM +0200, Alex Band wrote: > Signing emails from hostmaster at ripe.net, lir-help at ripe.net, > new-lir at ripe.net and enum at ripe.net is one of the first pieces that > we need to remove in order to phase out all the legacy software. I can't see that this would be a step forward. PGP-signed mails were introduced to ensure mails from the NCC could be trusted, and I do not see this requirement as "having gone away". Sorry if that makes your life a bit more tricky - but then, generating PGP signatures in a mail work flow is not rocket science either. Gert Doering -- using mail wherever possible to communicate with the NCC -- 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From sander at steffann.nl Tue Apr 9 14:32:35 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:32:35 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Message-ID: Hi Alex, > Signing emails from hostmaster at ripe.net, lir-help at ripe.net, new-lir at ripe.net and enum at ripe.net is one of the first pieces that we need to remove in order to phase out all the legacy software. While we realise that it is a best practice to sign such emails and are aware of the value it offers, we are planning to discontinue email signing from just these addresses starting 1 January 2014. It will allow us to phase out a part of our infrastructure that makes future migration a lot easier, while saving cost in the mean time. Bad idea. Come on, it can't be that difficult or expensive to add a digital signature to an e-mail. There are command line tools that can do that in a single line, and there is Python code that can do it in ?10! I don't know what software and language you are using, but if adding a PGP signature to outgoing messages is as hard as you describe then you're doing something horribly wrong... - Sander From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Apr 9 14:45:24 2013 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:45:24 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Alex Band wrote: > Signing emails from hostmaster at ripe.net, lir-help at ripe.net, > new-lir at ripe.net and enum at ripe.net is one of the first pieces that we > need to remove in order to phase out all the legacy software. While we > realise that it is a best practice to sign such emails and are aware of the > value it offers, we are planning to discontinue email signing from just > these addresses starting 1 January 2014. It will allow us to phase out a > part of our infrastructure that makes future migration a lot easier, while > saving cost in the mean time. > Without specific data and hard numbers, it's hard to quantify how much money and effort RIPE NCC thinks it may save. Unless we are speaking of incredibly high numbers, I fail to see how not signing email is a good idea. Especially since you are giving a start date, not an end date. I strongly agree with Gert and Sander that this seems to be a bad idea. Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andreas.larsen at ip-only.se Tue Apr 9 14:44:36 2013 From: andreas.larsen at ip-only.se (Andreas Larsen) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:44:36 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Not really sure what makes this function so hard to keep in place ? Otrs can do this out of the box and that system isn't legacy and is also free. // Andreas Den 2013-04-09 14:32 skrev Sander Steffann : >Hi Alex, > >> Signing emails from hostmaster at ripe.net, lir-help at ripe.net, >>new-lir at ripe.net and enum at ripe.net is one of the first pieces that we >>need to remove in order to phase out all the legacy software. While we >>realise that it is a best practice to sign such emails and are aware of >>the value it offers, we are planning to discontinue email signing from >>just these addresses starting 1 January 2014. It will allow us to phase >>out a part of our infrastructure that makes future migration a lot >>easier, while saving cost in the mean time. > >Bad idea. Come on, it can't be that difficult or expensive to add a >digital signature to an e-mail. There are command line tools that can do >that in a single line, and there is Python code that can do it in ?10! I >don't know what software and language you are using, but if adding a PGP >signature to outgoing messages is as hard as you describe then you're >doing something horribly wrong... > >- Sander > > From pk at DENIC.DE Tue Apr 9 14:56:56 2013 From: pk at DENIC.DE (Peter Koch) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:56:56 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20130409125656.GE13727@x28.adm.denic.de> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 02:07:19PM +0200, Alex Band wrote: > Signing emails from hostmaster at ripe.net, lir-help at ripe.net, new-lir at ripe.net and enum at ripe.net is one of the first pieces that we need to remove in order to phase out all the legacy software. While we realise that it is a best practice to sign such emails and are aware of the value it offers, we are planning to discontinue email signing from just these addresses starting 1 January 2014. It will allow us to phase out a part of our infrastructure that makes future migration a lot easier, while saving cost in the mean time. it isn't obvious to me whether this is a transitional step and what the expected duration would be. That said, reducing authentication appears an odd signal to me, the technical/operational background of which I'd rather understand in more depth. -Peter From marco.davids at sidn.nl Tue Apr 9 15:22:58 2013 From: marco.davids at sidn.nl (Marco Davids (SIDN)) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:22:58 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Message-ID: <51641632.7060505@sidn.nl> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/09/13 14:07, Alex Band wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/contact/pgp-authentication > > Signing emails from hostmaster at ripe.net, lir-help at ripe.net, > new-lir at ripe.net and enum at ripe.net is one of the first pieces that > we need to remove in order to phase out all the legacy software. But why? How hard can it be to sign your outgoing mail? Sounds like a joke :-) Is it even you, Alex? There's no way of telling.... Perhaps it's an idea for RIPE to introduce DKIM and DMARC? And hopefully leave PGP as it is. Regards, - -- Marco -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlFkFjIACgkQ0dvyGJ94G1JrUACeP2Md/y+bJ4qF2MGmK5NxXYus dIQAoIKSy5abeiV+0PIO2cw7iKPwZ9I5 =3ZJB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dave.wilson at heanet.ie Tue Apr 9 15:46:56 2013 From: dave.wilson at heanet.ie (Dave Wilson) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:46:56 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: <20130409121654.GH51699@Space.Net> References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> <20130409121654.GH51699@Space.Net> Message-ID: <51641BD0.10701@heanet.ie> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> new-lir at ripe.net and enum at ripe.net is one of the first pieces that >> we need to remove in order to phase out all the legacy software. > > I can't see that this would be a step forward. > > PGP-signed mails were introduced to ensure mails from the NCC could > be trusted, and I do not see this requirement as "having gone away". I don't think the requirement has gone away, but I am not sure that maintaining PGP signatures in the emails is actually fulfilling it. I would very much like to know if anyone is regularly checking the PGP signatures of tickets in their workflow (and, if that number is very small, whether there are other sensible ways to fulfil this requirement.) Otherwise, PGP signing is just not solving this problem, and keeping it in place only makes sense if we have confidence that this will change on the user side. Usage (current and future) is the only material point here, imo. We should resist the temptation to get into a discussion of relative costs and technology options. Arbitrarily adding more people to that sort of internal business discussion is not likely to make a better decision. Best regards, Dave - -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 web: www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 3666 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlFkG9AACgkQNFQvoMdXraksNgCfbSR0V0qe3Aat5v5jpWQ1Nu4V puwAoJNBkGxTr/NbfXDuFwhnLby2LKIV =iDLx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From alexb at ripe.net Tue Apr 9 16:59:10 2013 From: alexb at ripe.net (Alex Band) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:59:10 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Message-ID: On 9 Apr 2013, at 14:32, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Alex, > >> Signing emails from hostmaster at ripe.net, lir-help at ripe.net, new-lir at ripe.net and enum at ripe.net is one of the first pieces that we need to remove in order to phase out all the legacy software. While we realise that it is a best practice to sign such emails and are aware of the value it offers, we are planning to discontinue email signing from just these addresses starting 1 January 2014. It will allow us to phase out a part of our infrastructure that makes future migration a lot easier, while saving cost in the mean time. > > Bad idea. Come on, it can't be that difficult or expensive to add a digital signature to an e-mail. There are command line tools that can do that in a single line, and there is Python code that can do it in ?10! I don't know what software and language you are using, but if adding a PGP signature to outgoing messages is as hard as you describe then you're doing something horribly wrong... Thanks for the quick feedback everyone. Of course we would have liked to avoid this situation altogether, but anyone who is familiar with phasing out legacy systems knows what kind of unfortunate obstacles can arise. Allow me to explain this in a little more detail, at the risk of ending up in a bikeshedding discussion. :) Currently, tickets are being signed by a very old server, running an unsupported legacy OS and GNUPG1. In the beginning of the year, we tried phasing this server out and handle signing from one of our standard platforms running GNUPG2. That box signs emails very well, however our legacy ticketing refuses to play nice with it. We spent many, many hours on getting it our ticketing system to behave, but to no avail. The result was that we rolled back to the old solution, followed by this announcement: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2013-January/001968.html The proposal to discontinue ticket signing would be a temporary measure to allow an easier transition. That's all we're asking for. After we have migrated to a new platform, of course we can re-install the signing of e-mails if this is desired by the Community. Some of you have asked for a time indication for this transition period, but that is very hard to predict at this time as we have yet to decide on a new ticketing system and implementation plan. If the membership feels that a having any period, no matter how short, without these emails being signed is unacceptable then we will have to return with an alternative solution. Again, your feedback is very valuable in helping us with our planning. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, -Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at netability.ie Tue Apr 9 17:24:18 2013 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:24:18 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Message-ID: <516432A2.2060207@netability.ie> On 09/04/2013 15:59, Alex Band wrote: > The proposal to discontinue ticket signing would be a temporary measure to > allow an easier transition. That's all we're asking for. Much as I was enjoying munching popcorn while sitting on the sidelines, this seems like a reasonable proposal. Nick From gert at space.net Tue Apr 9 17:24:56 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:24:56 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: <516432A2.2060207@netability.ie> References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> <516432A2.2060207@netability.ie> Message-ID: <20130409152456.GR51699@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 04:24:18PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 09/04/2013 15:59, Alex Band wrote: > > The proposal to discontinue ticket signing would be a temporary measure to > > allow an easier transition. That's all we're asking for. > > Much as I was enjoying munching popcorn while sitting on the sidelines, > this seems like a reasonable proposal. +1 Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From nigel at titley.com Tue Apr 9 17:27:10 2013 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:27:10 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5164334E.1010005@titley.com> On 09/04/2013 15:59, Alex Band wrote: > > > Thanks for the quick feedback everyone. Of course we would have liked > to avoid this situation altogether, but anyone who is familiar with > phasing out legacy systems knows what kind of unfortunate obstacles > can arise. Allow me to explain this in a little more detail, at the > risk of ending up in a bikeshedding discussion. :) > > Currently, tickets are being signed by a very old server, running an > unsupported legacy OS and GNUPG1. In the beginning of the year, we > tried phasing this server out and handle signing from one of our > standard platforms running GNUPG2. That box signs emails very well, > however our legacy ticketing refuses to play nice with it. We spent > many, many hours on getting it our ticketing system to behave, but to > no avail. The result was that we rolled back to the old solution, > followed by this announcement: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2013-January/001968.html > > The proposal to discontinue ticket signing would be a temporary > measure to allow an easier transition. That's all we're asking for. That sounds fine to me.... next time try asking your management to allow you to say that straight out ;-) All the best Nigel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Tue Apr 9 17:31:37 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:31:37 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20F14804-BE7B-49FB-B2E3-8A1DF3A1DFC2@steffann.nl> Hi Alex, > Currently, tickets are being signed by a very old server, running an unsupported legacy OS and GNUPG1. In the beginning of the year, we tried phasing this server out and handle signing from one of our standard platforms running GNUPG2. That box signs emails very well, however our legacy ticketing refuses to play nice with it. We spent many, many hours on getting it our ticketing system to behave, but to no avail. The result was that we rolled back to the old solution, followed by this announcement: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2013-January/001968.html > > The proposal to discontinue ticket signing would be a temporary measure to allow an easier transition. That's all we're asking for. Ah, you should have said so. Transitions and migrations are always difficult. I have no problem when it is just a temporary interruption. > After we have migrated to a new platform, of course we can re-install the signing of e-mails if this is desired by the Community. Some of you have asked for a time indication for this transition period, but that is very hard to predict at this time as we have yet to decide on a new ticketing system and implementation plan. That is a bit unfortunate. Please keep us informed about progress, to avoid any more unnecessary surprises :-) And maybe we need a discussion on whether PGP signing is the appropriate tool for the requirements. I have the feeling that not many people check the signatures. But that is a different discussion. Thank you for providing some transparency here and explaining the rough roadmap. Keep doing that in the future :-) Cheers, Sander From marco.davids at sidn.nl Tue Apr 9 17:32:18 2013 From: marco.davids at sidn.nl (Marco Davids (SIDN)) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:32:18 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> Message-ID: <51643482.1000203@sidn.nl> On 04/09/13 16:59, Alex Band wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2013-January/001968.html > > The proposal to discontinue ticket signing would be a temporary measure > to allow an easier transition. That's all we're asking for. > > After we have migrated to a new platform, of course we can re-install > the signing of e-mails if this is desired by the Community. That sounds great. -- Marco From dave.wilson at heanet.ie Tue Apr 9 17:34:21 2013 From: dave.wilson at heanet.ie (Dave Wilson) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:34:21 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Plan to discontinue email signing from certain addresses In-Reply-To: <20F14804-BE7B-49FB-B2E3-8A1DF3A1DFC2@steffann.nl> References: <76CD6232-C369-4DE6-BC50-D8878B4E0935@ripe.net> <20F14804-BE7B-49FB-B2E3-8A1DF3A1DFC2@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <516434FD.6020808@heanet.ie> >> The proposal to discontinue ticket signing would be a temporary measure to allow an easier transition. That's all we're asking for. Fully agree with this. > And maybe we need a discussion on whether PGP signing is the appropriate tool for the requirements. I have the feeling that not many people check the signatures. But that is a different discussion. Fully agree with this. :-) Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 web: www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 3666 From nigel at titley.com Wed Apr 10 12:35:45 2013 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:35:45 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Certifying of PI End User Address Space In-Reply-To: <201303211712.12336.markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de> References: <201303211712.12336.markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de> Message-ID: <51654081.50300@titley.com> Following the consultation period as noted in the mail sent to the mailing list on 11 February on the issue of RPKI/Certification of Provider Independent (PI) resources for End Users, the RIPE NCC Executive Board discussed the issue at some length during their recent meeting on 26th March. After reviewing all feedback from the mailing list, the Board concluded that, as there is still disquiet about certification of resources in general and, in addition, as certification of resources to PI End Users is a service to be offered to non-members as well as to the RIPE NCC membership, the wider Internet community should have input into the decision-making process. The Board has therefore decided that the RIPE NCC should not offer RPKI/Certification for PI resources at this time. The Executive Board encourages interested parties to propose a community policy for the certification of PI End User resources through the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Board From randy at psg.com Thu Apr 11 13:45:13 2013 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:45:13 +0900 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Certifying of PI End User Address Space In-Reply-To: <51654081.50300@titley.com> References: <201303211712.12336.markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de> <51654081.50300@titley.com> Message-ID: nigel, i am a bit confused, which of course is my normal state. but someone has to say it. certification is a matter of address policy, no membership vote, no board decision. maybe we should consult an oracle or flip a coin? i did not realize that bottom up was just a drinking toast. the pi proposal was controversial but there was no disagreement. let's see if we can generate some? this needs to be discussed by "the wider Internet community." i thought these fora were the wider community. how do you plan to consult the wider internet community, icann or the itu? so please explain to me. on second thought, don't bother. we have heard the word from the mount. unfortunately it is not very stable. but such is life. i live in an earthquake zone. randy From alexb at ripe.net Thu Apr 11 14:20:53 2013 From: alexb at ripe.net (Alex Band) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:20:53 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RPKI Validator 2.8 released Message-ID: <44768179-42C6-4E11-AE0D-7F77A71EE6F1@ripe.net> For those of you who use the 5.5 /8s worth of certified address space in the RPKI repository, we just released a new version of the Validator toolset: https://www.ripe.net/certification/tools-and-resources This version now properly handles other types of RPKI objects, such as Ghostbuster records (rfc6493). Cheers, Alex P.S. You can watch it in action here: http://rpki01.fra2.de.euro-transit.net:8080/roas From training at ripe.net Thu Apr 11 14:11:19 2013 From: training at ripe.net (Training Mailbox) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:11:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates In-Reply-To: <50FE6858.9090800@ripe.net> References: <50FE6858.9090800@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5166A867.40302@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars for LIRs. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live, one hour online training courses that allow participants to interact with our trainers without leaving their desks. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services From erik at bais.name Fri Apr 12 12:15:10 2013 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:15:10 +0000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Certifying of PI End User Address Space In-Reply-To: References: <201303211712.12336.markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de> <51654081.50300@titley.com> Message-ID: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C489690A6@e2010-mbx-c1n1.exchange2010.nl> Hi Randy, > i am a bit confused, which of course is my normal state. but someone > has to say it. I'm sure it isn't just you who is a bit confused here Randy, I'm somewhat younger and I'm a bit confused as well. This has been going from policy to member vote to 'Feedback Request by NCC' to board. And now it back to policy ? Anyhow ... On the part of process, the question that we should have an answer to is: (I think) Should 'nonmember address space' be eligible for certification. I specifically phrased it as nonmember, as we will not only have PI End-Users, but we might also have legacy space holders that might want to do so. I'm willing to put that on a policy proposal and see where we end up. Erik Bais From nigel at titley.com Fri Apr 12 18:19:17 2013 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:19:17 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Certifying of PI End User Address Space In-Reply-To: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C489690A6@e2010-mbx-c1n1.exchange2010.nl> References: <201303211712.12336.markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de> <51654081.50300@titley.com> <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C489690A6@e2010-mbx-c1n1.exchange2010.nl> Message-ID: <51683405.7000102@titley.com> On 12/04/2013 11:15, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Randy, > >> i am a bit confused, which of course is my normal state. but someone >> has to say it. > I'm sure it isn't just you who is a bit confused here Randy, I'm somewhat younger and I'm a bit confused as well. > > This has been going from policy to member vote to 'Feedback Request by NCC' to board. > And now it back to policy ? Anyhow ... No, PI certification has never had a policy proposal. This went straight from "Operational consultation by NCC" to "Discussion on the ncc-services list" to "Board decision not to offer the service without a community policy" > > On the part of process, the question that we should have an answer to is: (I think) Should 'nonmember address space' be eligible for certification. Indeed. Feel free to propose a policy > > I specifically phrased it as nonmember, as we will not only have PI End-Users, but we might also have legacy space holders that might want to do so. > > I'm willing to put that on a policy proposal and see where we end up. Excellent. Please go ahead Nigel From mschmidt at ripe.net Mon Apr 22 14:33:08 2013 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:33:08 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-08, "Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-08 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-08/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to ncc-services-wg at ripe.net before 20 May 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC From mir at ripe.net Mon Apr 22 14:58:48 2013 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:58:48 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Introducing the RIPE NCC Roadmap Message-ID: <51753408.9000206@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, We often get asked about the status of our different services and projects, and while we frequently publish updates on RIPE Labs, we now have a new tool that makes it easier to stay informed. We're happy to announce the RIPE NCC Roadmap, where you can get an overview of all the latest developments and future plans for these services in one place. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/introducing-ripe-ncc-roadmap This prototype, which is hosted on RIPE Labs, will be further developed as we receive your feedback, so please let us know what you think. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Apr 22 21:38:56 2013 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:38:56 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20130422123754.3BF234E93E@mail.c4inet.net> References: <20130422123754.3BF234E93E@mail.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20130422193856.GA99009@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-08 To recap: my main point of contention with this proposal is that it creates a perception of responsibility of the sponsoring LIR for the actions of the end user - which does not exist beyond keeping the ripedb updated. Thus it creates an attack surface for those who see it as their duty to keep the internet free of . Which will make it hard to impossible for a controversial or otherwise inconvenient independent resource holder (or applicant) to find or keep a sponsoring LIR. Impact Statement: "During implementation of this policy, the RIPE NCC will contact those organisations acting as sponsoring LIRs to notify them of this change and allow them time to react appropriately, by reviewing their sponsoring LIR agreements and terminating any they do not want to be associated with (or even all of them)." The wording is ambiguous and may refer to resources "brought in" under 2007-01/Phase III, but it can be read as if a sponsoring LIR will get an opportunity to break a sponsorship contract with an inconvenient end-user, thus orphaning them before an attack even happens. I would ask the NCC to please clarify the intention of this sentence, and note that https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/independent-resources/independent-assignment-request-and-maintenance-agreement does specify a notice period of 3 months for termination of the IR contract, otherwise we're looking at a case of Breach of Contract. For the record and the avoidance of doubt: I still oppose this proposal for the above mentioned reason. Kind Regards, Sascha Luck > >We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >to ncc-services-wg at ripe.net before 20 May 2013. > >Regards > >Marco Schmidt >Policy Development Office >RIPE NCC > > From mschmidt at ripe.net Tue Apr 23 15:45:18 2013 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (mschmidt at ripe.net) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:45:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources) In-Reply-To: <20130422193856.GA99009@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20130422123754.3BF234E93E@mail.c4inet.net> <20130422193856.GA99009@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <59950.213.46.11.94.1366724718.squirrel@webmail.ripe.net> Dear colleagues, >From the RIPE NCC's point of view, the agreement between the LIR and the End User can be terminated for any reason. If the LIR wants to terminate their agreement with an End User, they can always do so. It is then the responsibility of the End User to find a new sponsoring LIR. The model agreement gives a notification period of three months, but any agreement that includes the minimum requirements set by the policy is acceptable. The inclusion of a specific notification period is not one of the minimum requirements. It's worth mentioning that the RIPE NCC will not obligate LIRs to terminate their agreements. If the policy is accepted and an LIR does not feel comfortable with publishing their names in relation to a particular client, it is up to the LIR to terminate that agreement based on the agreement's terms. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >>You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-08 > > To recap: my main point of contention with this proposal is that it > creates a perception of responsibility of the sponsoring LIR for the > actions of the end user - which does not exist beyond keeping the > ripedb updated. Thus it creates an attack surface for those who see it > as their duty to keep the internet free of . > Which will make it hard to impossible for a controversial or otherwise > inconvenient independent resource holder (or applicant) to find or keep > a sponsoring LIR. > > Impact Statement: > > "During implementation of this policy, the RIPE NCC will contact those > organisations acting as sponsoring LIRs to notify them of this change > and allow them time to react appropriately, by reviewing their > sponsoring LIR agreements and terminating any they do not want to be > associated with (or even all of them)." > > The wording is ambiguous and may refer to resources "brought in" under > 2007-01/Phase III, but it can be read as if a sponsoring LIR will get > an opportunity to break a sponsorship contract with an inconvenient > end-user, thus orphaning them before an attack even happens. > > I would ask the NCC to please clarify the intention of this sentence, > and note that > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/independent-resources/independent-assignment-request-and-maintenance-agreement > > does specify a notice period of 3 months for termination of the IR > contract, otherwise we're looking at a case of Breach of Contract. > > For the record and the avoidance of doubt: I still oppose this proposal > for the above mentioned reason. > > > > Kind Regards, > Sascha Luck > > >> >>We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >>to ncc-services-wg at ripe.net before 20 May 2013. >> >>Regards >> >>Marco Schmidt >>Policy Development Office >>RIPE NCC >> >> > > > From mschmidt at ripe.net Thu Apr 25 15:38:45 2013 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:38:45 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-07, "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to ncc-services-wg at ripe.net before 23 May 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC From mestrada at ripe.net Thu Apr 25 16:36:11 2013 From: mestrada at ripe.net (Marisol Estrada) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:36:11 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [news] Policy Proposal 2012-09 "Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments" implemented Message-ID: <51793F5B.2010001@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE policy proposal 2012-09, "Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for temporary assignments under this policy. The full proposal can be found at: The updated "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies" document is available at: The "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Request Form " can be found at: The supporting notes can be found at: If you have any questions, please contact . Regards, Marisol Estrada RIPE NCC From bijal.sanghani at euro-ix.net Mon Apr 29 15:01:18 2013 From: bijal.sanghani at euro-ix.net (Bijal Sanghani) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:01:18 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 66 Message-ID: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> Dear All, Please see below and online the Draft Agenda for the NCC Services WG at RIPE 66 - https://ripe66.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/services-wg/ regards, Bijal === Date: Wednesday 15 May 2013 Time: 16.00 - 17.45 Chair: Kurtis Lindqvist Co-Chair: Bijal Sanghani A. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) Welcome Select a scribe Finalise agenda Approve minutes from RIPE 65 B. Report from RIPE NCC - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC (25 minutes) C. RIPE NCC Survey 2013 - Serge Radovcic, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) D. Internet Governance update - Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) E. Registration Services update - Andrew de la Haye (20 minutes) F. Open Microphone Session Z. AOB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Mon Apr 29 15:50:30 2013 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:50:30 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 66 In-Reply-To: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> References: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> Message-ID: <91218466-E87B-40CE-A26E-F9B60C24196B@ucd.ie> On 29 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Bijal Sanghani wrote: > Dear All, > > Please see below and online the Draft Agenda for the NCC Services WG at RIPE 66 - > > https://ripe66.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/services-wg/ > > regards, > > Bijal Shouldn't there be a policy update from Emilio, or an opportunity to note or discuss open policy proposals? I mean something analogous to items B, F, and G of the Address Policy WG. ATB /Niall > === > Date: Wednesday 15 May 2013 > Time: 16.00 - 17.45 > > Chair: Kurtis Lindqvist > Co-Chair: Bijal Sanghani > > A. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) > > Welcome > Select a scribe > Finalise agenda > Approve minutes from RIPE 65 > > B. Report from RIPE NCC > - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC (25 minutes) > > C. RIPE NCC Survey 2013 > - Serge Radovcic, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) > > D. Internet Governance update > - Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) > > E. Registration Services update > - Andrew de la Haye (20 minutes) > > F. Open Microphone Session > > Z. AOB > > From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 29 19:03:59 2013 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:03:59 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 66 In-Reply-To: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> References: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> Message-ID: don't we have active policy proposals? randy From ebais at a2b-internet.com Mon Apr 29 21:33:48 2013 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:33:48 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 66 In-Reply-To: References: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> Message-ID: Emilio was on vacation till today I believe. Tomorrow is a public holiday in The Netherlands, so when he will catch up on his mailbox, he should be able to answer this.. There is at least 1 policy proposal that I've send to him, there might be others ... Erik Bais Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 29 apr. 2013 om 19:03 heeft Randy Bush het volgende geschreven: > don't we have active policy proposals? > > randy > From sander at steffann.nl Mon Apr 29 22:17:16 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:17:16 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 66 In-Reply-To: References: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> Message-ID: <725E2825-FFA2-49B6-BA85-A18F1C2C765A@steffann.nl> Hi Erik, > Emilio was on vacation till today I believe. > Tomorrow is a public holiday in The Netherlands, so when he will catch up on his mailbox, he should be able to answer this.. There is nothing that Emilio needs to do, he just supports the WG chairs. Answering messages on the mailing list and making an agenda containing the stuff that needs to happen during the WG session are all tasks for the WG chairs :-) And I can tell, because I see Gert doing that kind of stuff all the time! ;-) Cheers, Sander From sander at steffann.nl Mon Apr 29 23:11:42 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:11:42 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] PDP stuff Message-ID: Hi NCCS! :-) As you probably have noticed your WG chair job responsibilities are shifting since there are active PDP policy proposals in your WG. It seems you forgot to put those proposals on your agenda :-) If you need help/advice/guidance/etc on running PDP stuff please don't hesitate to ask those of us who have more experience. I was just talking with Gert about Erik Bais' new proposal about asking the NCC to do resource certification for non-members: ?Resource Certification for organizations who are not RIPE NCC members?. Which WG does this belong in? The previous certification policy proposals have been in AP, but people have asked me why they were in AP instead of in NCCS. This new proposal is again on the border between our WGs. What do you think? And do you feel up to taking on this proposal or would you prefer us to handle it? It is one of those proposals that might be easy, or it might need a lot of guidance behind the scenes (guidance of the proposer that is, we don't do back-room deals ;-) Sorry if I seem to be involving myself too much in your WG, but the stuff in NCCS is important to the community and we can't afford to let things slip here. No offence intended! But help is offered :-) Cheers, Sander From sander at steffann.nl Mon Apr 29 23:18:59 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:18:59 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] PDP stuff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh damn! This message was meant to go to the chairs, not to the list. My sincere apologies!!!!! Sander From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 29 23:23:53 2013 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:23:53 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] PDP stuff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: sander, i am torn. erik's proposal is not address allocation per se. it is about services. otoh, to maintain my reputation for tact, it would be nice to have active chairs helping the community to focus and progress through the consensus process. randy From sander at steffann.nl Mon Apr 29 23:30:01 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:30:01 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] PDP stuff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, > i am torn. erik's proposal is not address allocation per se. it is > about services. otoh, to maintain my reputation for tact, it would be > nice to have active chairs helping the community to focus and progress > through the consensus process. Well, I know how simple and easy it seems from the outside and how difficult and confusing it can get. Cheers, Sander From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Apr 30 11:15:53 2013 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Lindqvist Kurt Erik) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:15:53 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 66 In-Reply-To: <725E2825-FFA2-49B6-BA85-A18F1C2C765A@steffann.nl> References: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> <725E2825-FFA2-49B6-BA85-A18F1C2C765A@steffann.nl> Message-ID: On 29 apr 2013, at 22:17, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Erik, > >> Emilio was on vacation till today I believe. >> Tomorrow is a public holiday in The Netherlands, so when he will catch up on his mailbox, he should be able to answer this.. > > There is nothing that Emilio needs to do, he just supports the WG chairs. Answering messages on the mailing list and making an agenda containing the stuff that needs to happen during the WG session are all tasks for the WG chairs :-) > > And I can tell, because I see Gert doing that kind of stuff all the time! ;-) It would be good if you could send the proposals to me and Bijal just for agenda planning. But yes, if there are a other proposals we woudld like to know...:) Best regards, - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Apr 30 11:16:24 2013 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Lindqvist Kurt Erik) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:16:24 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 66 In-Reply-To: <91218466-E87B-40CE-A26E-F9B60C24196B@ucd.ie> References: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> <91218466-E87B-40CE-A26E-F9B60C24196B@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <5EE0F0F1-4758-4BE5-A318-8242E54DD008@kurtis.pp.se> On 29 apr 2013, at 15:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > On 29 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Bijal Sanghani wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Please see below and online the Draft Agenda for the NCC Services WG at RIPE 66 - >> >> https://ripe66.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/services-wg/ >> >> regards, >> >> Bijal > > Shouldn't there be a policy update from Emilio, or an opportunity to > note or discuss open policy proposals? I mean something analogous to > items B, F, and G of the Address Policy WG. This is a mistake on our side. Bijal is sending out a new agenda, we forgot a few other things too.... Best regards, - kurtis - From bijal.sanghani at euro-ix.net Tue Apr 30 14:13:22 2013 From: bijal.sanghani at euro-ix.net (Bijal Sanghani) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:13:22 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 66 In-Reply-To: <725E2825-FFA2-49B6-BA85-A18F1C2C765A@steffann.nl> References: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> <725E2825-FFA2-49B6-BA85-A18F1C2C765A@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <413A2102-1150-4E5C-8B5A-71D6945499F8@euro-ix.net> Dear All, My apologies, there will be a policy update from the RIPE NCC, please see updated agenda below: === Date: Wednesday 15 May 2013 Time: 16.00 - 17.45 Chair: Kurtis Lindqvist Co-Chair: Bijal Sanghani A. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) Welcome Select a scribe Finalise agenda Approve minutes from RIPE 65 B. Report from RIPE NCC - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) C. RIPE NCC Survey 2013 - Serge Radovcic, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) D. Internet Governance update - Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC (15 minutes) E. Registration Services update - Andrew de la Haye, RIPE NCC (15 minutes) F. Policy Update: 2012-07 - RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders 2012-08 - Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources - Emilio Madaio, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) G. Open Microphone Session Z. AOB 1. Straw Poll on following Pre-Policy Discussions: - All PDP emails, documents and websites should come with unified diff - PDPs should be renamed from YYYY-NN to RIPE-PDP-YYYY-NN-vN - All published documents and PDPs are maintained with git - All RIPE documents should be plain text regards, Bijal On 29 Apr 2013, at 21:17, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Erik, > >> Emilio was on vacation till today I believe. >> Tomorrow is a public holiday in The Netherlands, so when he will catch up on his mailbox, he should be able to answer this.. > > There is nothing that Emilio needs to do, he just supports the WG chairs. Answering messages on the mailing list and making an agenda containing the stuff that needs to happen during the WG session are all tasks for the WG chairs :-) > > And I can tell, because I see Gert doing that kind of stuff all the time! ;-) > > Cheers, > Sander > > From randy at psg.com Tue Apr 30 19:31:58 2013 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:31:58 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 66 In-Reply-To: <413A2102-1150-4E5C-8B5A-71D6945499F8@euro-ix.net> References: <9CB9C668-B967-42DC-A35B-78D12FEBD98B@euro-ix.net> <725E2825-FFA2-49B6-BA85-A18F1C2C765A@steffann.nl> <413A2102-1150-4E5C-8B5A-71D6945499F8@euro-ix.net> Message-ID: hi bijal, > F. Policy Update: > 2012-07 - RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders > 2012-08 - Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources > - Emilio Madaio, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) is there not a services to PI holders proposal? is there not a rpki to non-members proposal? and are the collection of proposals not significant enough to be give more discussion time? randy