[rpd] End of LAST call

[Taiwo Oyewande]

I support Pascal on this. 

A detailed list of objections will help the community have better understanding of the discussions. 

Taiwo


> On 1 Feb 2020, at 09:33, Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> I think its usually impossible to track all objections raised. It might be too much of a workload for the cochairs to track objections and map them to answers to come out with a conclusion. However, just as people here have said they can request for help. Furthermore, I think the authors can also assist in doing that during their responses to objections cos it will be easier to document that way to show a documented addressing of objections to prove that all has been addressed.

> 

>> On Friday, January 31, 2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

>> Hi Daniel,

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> I did a quick search in the list archive. If you’re referring to this email:

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010280.html

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> I’ve responded to it (in less than 2 hours):

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010282.html

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> I think it clearly addresses your points.

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> I recall other people also answered afterwards.

>> 

>>  

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> Regards,

>> 

>> Jordi

>> 

>> @jordipalet

>> 

>>  

>> 

>>  

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> El 31/1/20 6:58, "Daniel Yakmut via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> I don't agree with your submission that; "All of the “objections” I saw seemed to indicate a clear lack of understanding of RPKI in general and the proposal in specific."

>> 

>> I particularly raised a concern "The current state of RPKI infrastructure, does not provide a sufficient period between revocation of ROA and notification that a given prefix has been allocated to an organization, which can impact considerably on allocations. Except we can be able to provide a sufficient period or create a different procedure, the proposal for the RPKI-ROAs does not fly"

>> 

>> and I did not receive any response from the author(s), I suspect this is a concern that is critical and important to possible adoption and implementation this proposal

>> 

>> However, I will agree that the author(s) may have been overwhelm with the number of "objections" raised and could not keep track of it and response, hence I will suggest that the co-chairs could help by summarising the objections for the action of the author(s).

>> 

>> Simply.

>> 

>> Dan

>> 

>>  

>> 

>>  

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> On 31/01/2020 3:18 am, Owen DeLong wrote:

>> 

>> I agree with Nishal, Jordi, and Frank.

>>  

>> All of the “objections” I saw seemed to indicate a clear lack of understanding of RPKI in general and the proposal in specific.

>>  

>> All of them raised concerns that simply don’t fit the facts of what is being proposed.

>>  

>> I did not see any legitimate or critical objections. If there is something I missed, please enumerate it (them) for the edification of the list.

>>  

>> Owen

>>  

>>  

>> On Jan 29, 2020, at 03:58 , Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:

>>  

>> On 29 Jan 2020, at 12:35, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE wrote:

>>  

>> Dear PDWG,

>> The following policy proposals have been on the Last call for about 4 weeks

>> 1.  Multihoming not required for ASN

>> 2.  Adjusting IPv6 PA Policy

>> 3. RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space

>>  

>> However, we received some critical objections that should be addressed on

>> the policy named  "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address

>> Space" therefore we believe it requires more discussion.

>> could you enumerate those “critical objections” please.  that would help the authors to fix this for round two.

>> from my perspective, the last series of responses, came from a fundamental misunderstanding of what RPKI is, and how it works.

>>  

>> (bear in mind, that it’s not the authors’ - or this list’s - responsibility to explain RPKI ..)

>>  

>> -n.

>>  

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>  

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>> 

>> 

>> **********************************************

>> IPv4 is over

>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

>> http://www.theipv6company.com

>> 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.

>> 

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200201/40349d3e/attachment.html>