[rpd] End of LAST call

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Anthony,

 

I think I’ve explained that. Let’s try it with different examples/words.

 

A global policy makes sense in general if we have to make an action on IANA. For example, instead of providing a /23 IPv6 block for every RIR, as IPv6 space, a few years ago we moved that to /12.

 

In this case, we may want to have that for publishing RPKI ROAs for the IANA unallocated space which is different that the unallocated space of each RIR. It is a different scope.

 

Furthermore, a global policy requires that in ALL the 5 RIRs, the same text (exact same words, not even a single “,” of difference) reach consensus in all the RIRs. This will take much longer, and if a single RIR don’t like it, nothing is done.

 

In this case, every RIR that passes it provides a 20% of value. It is clear that is better to have a 40% (because 20% is already there as this policy passed already in APNIC), or even 60% (if it passes as well in LACNIC or RIPE, if it passes in both will be already 80%), than just 20%, right?

 

Note that my % figures are just one example, and assuming a similar sharing of IPv4 and IPv6 unallocated space in different RIRs. Actually if you look at AFRINIC space, it has more unallocated IPv4 space than any other RIR, and much more unallocated IPv6 space than any other RIR, so the % of “benefit” is even bigger.

 

If we also want a global policy for the IANA unallocated, space, that’s a possibility, but it is a different “coverage”. If this policy passes in all the 5 RIR, then it will be clear that possibly, it makes sense to push for that one as well.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 1/2/20 17:21, "Anthony Ubah" <ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Hello Nishal Goburdhan,

 

I quite support the proposition to track views shared by members of the community, and responses provided by the Author(s) and community on every policy proposed. 

This will go a long way in making decision making easier for the Co-Chairs, Afrinioc staff and the community at large. It introduces more transparency. That way, strong/weak/irrelevant or passive suggestions and objections can be followed up and fully considered and/or addressed.

I suggest a platform for this should be set aside and updated regularly. This will shrink repetitions and save the community valuable time. We all have different schedules, and everyone can not invest the minimum time required to revisit every comment posted in the rpd mailing list.

 

With respect to the above, a typical example would be my query on this  RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space policy proposal, a few of my inquiries were addressed, however, I questioned the effectiveness of having such policy on a regional scale where the true benefit can only be enjoyed if implemented as a global policy. 

I ask again, why not push for a Global policy proposal for RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned resources? If I didn't miss the response to that, then it still hasn't been addressed.

 

Regards,

 

Ant'

 

 

E-mail: anthony.ubah at goldspine.com.ng

 

 

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 1:00 PM <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:

Send RPD mailing list submissions to
        rpd at afrinic.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        rpd-request at afrinic.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        rpd-owner at afrinic.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: End of LAST call (Taiwo Oyewande)
   2. Re: End of LAST call (Nishal Goburdhan)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 10:01:46 +0100
From: Taiwo Oyewande <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>
To: Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com>
Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] End of LAST call
Message-ID: <50853D8D-E109-4722-A818-6BD5E72A3345 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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> escribi?:

>> 

>>  

>> 

>> 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-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 11:28:25 +0200
From: Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za>
To: Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com>
Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] End of LAST call
Message-ID: <B33DC27B-25FA-4CBD-BA54-70CDE43EB65D at controlfreak.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On 01 Feb 2020, at 10:42, 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.



considering that the co-chairs MUST evaluate objections to gauge if there is consensus or not, which, means that they MUST obviously read and decide if these are substantive objections, or not, i don?t see why the co-chairs - working with afrinic?s policy development officer - can not produce a report highlighting these contentious issues.  

i do not think that the co-chairs should be asked to map these to solutions;   that is not their role. 

i would be sceptical of any author producing a report, claiming to address all objections.

?n.







------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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


------------------------------

End of RPD Digest, Vol 161, Issue 2
***********************************

_______________________________________________ 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200201/e99b6103/attachment-0001.html>