Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] AFPUB-2019-IPv6-002-DRAFT01: "Adjusting IPv6 PA Policy"

Wed Nov 6 14:40:47 UTC 2019

Hi Sylvain,

El 6/11/19 14:50, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at> escribió:

Hi all,

Please see my comments below (inline)...

Le 11/5/2019 à 8:31 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD a écrit :

Hi Sylvain,


Please, let me know any questions/inputs.

Replace this «[...]section removed and following text renumbered[...]» by this one «[...]Remove

the section and renumber the following text[...]»

The rational of the above line is to propose a clear operational action to be executed by the

CPM/DPP's editor.

As you see, i have used the same syntax ;-)

My hope is that, it becomes an habit for the DPP's authors.

I understand your point, but this is editorial issues,

Dear Jordi,

Thanks for your response !

...that is why i mentioned the CPM's editor alongside with the DPP's editor. Normally, this

part is not concerning me as a reviewer. So, if DPP's editors start to use the *Imperative Mode*

when it's necessary to give clear instructions to the CPM's editor for renumbering purpose for

example ; i think that using 'Imperative Mode' could add more clarification in the communication

between editors (CPM's and DPP). However, i apologize for have misused to term 'syntax' to

speak about the 'Imperative Mode'.

I think the PDP already allows the staff to suggest different wording for any part of the policy manual (or policy proposals), if the wording is not changing the intent. However, the reality is that this not often happening (not just in AFRINIC), but also in other regions. Very few times, when I submit a policy proposal, I got a very specific comments about wording (thanks for that Ernest!).

that we can change at any time. Remember that this text doesn’t go into the policy manual, so is not “that much important”. If we discuss every word in a policy proposal, then we can never reach consensus!

:'-( Jordi, by this comment you are presumably confirming that the *Imperative Mode* (not really

a particular *syntax*) i'm proposing (that all the DPP's (Draft Policy Proposal) editor start to use)

works well ;-)

Maybe we are missing and overall “review” of each policy proposal before going into the manual (and again this doesn’t require a PDP change and could be done in the complete manual). For example:
A policy proposal reach consensus (after the last call).
The staff review the text (again), to “align” the wording with the one in the rest of the CPM in case something was not discovered before, and if there is any change, double check that the community, via the RPD “Dear Community, after having reached consensus, we believe that sentence xxx reads better as yyy and keeps the intent of the original text. In order to align with the ‘style’ of the manual, unless we heard otherwise, this is what we are passing to the board for ratification”.

...something more important for all those (few) who care to this policy thing, is the ease it can be

for new comers to quickly understand what is happening in PDWG. And it's definitely not about

simple words or syntax (misused term) but it's about the *semantic* (not misused term). Why ?

simply because me as new active member (and i guess : any member you include) of this policy

community, when you say «[...]section removed and following text renumbered[...]» it means that :

*you* (DPP's editor) have *already* removed the section (not sure to be true, because you are not

the CPM' editor) and *you* have already renumbered (this is totally false because you are not the

CPM editor).

And you’re totally right, I should have used “this section must be removed” … I’m not native English speaker, and this is why I think the staff could take a more active role on this.

Of course, I don’t mind changing it, if, there is a need for other reasons to do a new version. Will you agree on that?

...please see above, to get the best answer.

During the meeting, we can also, being an editorial comment, change it, and ask consensus with that text. I just need to remind that when doing the slides … I hope I can remember it!

...i also have a naive question : please, is an IXP considered as a LIR (CPM section 2.3) ? :-/

No, in fact the main reason we changed in the last round the IPv6 PI (end users), is because the previous policy was broken: it was mandating IXPs to announce the space, which they don’t do, so the risk was that they aren’t following the policy and thus can get the space reclaimed per the RSA.

This answer helps me to fix something in my knowledge of IP distribution, and i am grateful ! the others, before i didn't understand the real difference between PI and PA (perhaps not exactly that, but i failed to see that as IXPs are not *Provider* (in this context) or *LIR*, they are not eligible to this policy and DPP, but to an other one (CPM section 6.8) ; due to theirs status of non LIR, then 'Provider Independent'.

Remember : i'm still open to learn, then if someone want to take me, even, as intern in his IXP, i'll

certainly learn more about IXPs ;-)





Best Regards !                         
baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | <> | <>
Subscribe to Mailing List : <>
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE|‪#‎Romains15:33"Que LE ‪#‎DIEU de ‪#‎Paix soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen!"
‪#‎MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement                      
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list