Search RPD Archives
[rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "Multihoming not required for ASN (AFPUB-2019-ASN-DRAFT01)"
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri Apr 5 22:04:11 UTC 2019
El 5/4/19 23:23, "S. Moonesamy" <sm+af at afrinic.net> escribió:
At 12:18 PM 05-04-2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>The impact analysis in AfriNIC is not "requested" but done
>automatically, since, 1 year ago or so, at least. I suggested it
>some time ago I think as well for all the policies.
It is usually better to ask for something instead of waiting for it
to be happen automatically.
I agree, and you may guess that if I know that it was being published today, is because I've asked already to the staff :-)
>I recall I was told that this one will be published today or so,
>because I've already a new version prepared with the changes that we
>have been discussing in the list, but I want to take the opportunity
>to verify that nothing else is discovered as "broken" by the impact analysis.
One of the principles of the existing policy development process is
transparency. One of the reasons for that principle is so that
anyone in this working group can assess the impact of a proposed
policy. There is an assumption that the person(s) proposing a policy
change would be able to analyze its potential impact or request
information, if it is not already available, to do that.
There is a network operator who provided feedback on the two words
which I mentioned previously. Could you please provide some feedback
on the last question in my previous email?
Sorry I guess I missed that part replying too fast. But my answer is the same.
I don't keep myself the emails from that discussion (I delete them once I respond), and you are deleting that text, so I can to see it anymore ... So please, don't delete text from emails, so to have a fluid discussion!
I captured it from the mailing list archive. I think you mean this:
After receiving feedback from Resource Members, I read the
information on the web site to see what could be useful to
them. Here's an example: "All requests for ASNs under these criteria
will be evaluated using the guidelines described in RFC 1930 or its
successors". That RFC contains ten pages. The English version of
the text in your email fits in one page. That text contains the
words "routing policy". Would a network operator understand those words?
-> Yes, anyone requesting an ASN MUST understand that. Anyone reading the policy manual MUST understand that. Otherwise, they should ask the staff or get some training!
There was also the following in the text: "or be planning to
interconnect within a period of no more than six (6) month as of the
moment of the application". Is that clearer in comparison with "a
reasonably short time thereafter"?
-> I don't see where is that text? Anyway, in my opinion, in some cases it is better to not provide strict deadline, so in a case by case basis the staff can decide.
-> if you mean that in LACNIC they mention six months, I didn't developed that policy proposal and didn't realized about that. I may probably actually suggest a policy to reword it there as well ...
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
More information about the RPD