[rpd] End of LAST call

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Asking the authors to do the job of the staff/co-chairs (as Sander explained in a previous email), is not the good way, among other reasons because authors, even if they try to be objective, are humans, and they can provide a biased view to the overall community.

I think it is clear that email archive is there for something, and it is the work of everyone raising any objection to see if he got a response, or otherwise, ask again, try to explain better the points that is raising, etc.

In this case, we got only an objection and I requested to justify it, at least 2 times. It was not any rational response, so the objection can't be considered as valid.

As I said before, if every objection without a justification is considered we can just stop the PDP, because in every last call, somebody can say "I don't like it" or "this is giving power to governments" (even if is not the case).

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 1/2/20 18:49, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz> escribió:

    Hi,
    
    On 01/02/2020 11:33, Paschal Ochang wrote:
    > I think its usually impossible to track all objections raised.
    
    -1 (disagree)
    
    > 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.
    
    "might" - agree.
    they can ask for help. Or: see Nishal's email.
    
    > 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
    
    Below I see the author referring to the archive link of the email the he
    trusts is the issue, and responds with the link to the archive of his
    response. This *is* help from author(s) clarifying what they respond to
    and how they respond(ed) to it.
    
    > cos it will be easier to document that way to show a
    > documented addressing of objections to prove that all has been addressed.
    
    the so-called "objections" are maybe not specific enough.
    I've sent an email about the vague "does not provide a sufficient
    period" yesterday. Awaiting response.
    
    
    Thanks,
    Frank
    
    
    > 
    > On Friday, January 31, 2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD
    > <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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
    >     <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
    >     <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
    >     <mailto: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> <mailto: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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>____
    > 
    >             https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>____
    > 
    >         __ __
    > 
    >         ___________________________________________________
    > 
    >         RPD mailing list____
    > 
    >         RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>____
    > 
    >         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>____
    > 
    >     _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
    >     RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
    >     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
    >     <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
    > 
    
    _______________________________________________
    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.