Search RPD Archives
[rpd] End of LAST call
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Sun Feb 2 00:52:34 UTC 2020
> 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.
>
Anthony, this was asked and answered… (I remember posting an explanation similar to what is below before)...
There are two similar terms which get conflated here…
Global Policy
Globally Coordinated Policy
The former is an official term and refers to a policy which directs ICANN interaction with the RIRs. Since ICANN is not involved in the issuance of RPKI AS0 ROAs, there’s no use and no meaning to a global policy in this area.
At best, what you are calling for is a Globally Coordinated Policy.
However, Globally Coordinated Policy simply means that each of the 5 RIRs considers and adopts the same (or very similar) policy language and approximately the same time.
There’s really very little difference between adopting the policy individually in each of the 5 RIRs (this has been proposed in at least 4 of them so far) vs. having it adopted as a globally coordinated policy. The outcome is identical and the coordination effort is much simpler if the proposal is simply pushed in each of the 5 regions individually.
Since each RIR would be independently issuing RPKI AS0 ROAs for space in their individual inventories, there’s actually no benefit to coordinating the implementation of the policy. Incremental benefit is achieved as each RIR implements the policy.
Further, even if this were a subject for a global policy, the first step in adopting a global policy is for each RIR to adopt (nearly) identical policy language through their individual PDP. Once all 5 RIRs have come to consensus on the same policy, it is handed over to the NRO-NC (which also serves as the ASO-AC) to bring to the ICANN board for final ratification. So adopting this individual policy proposal would still be the first step in any case.
Hope that clarifies things.
Owen
> Regards,
>
> Ant'
>
>
>
> E-mail: anthony.ubah at goldspine.com <mailto:anthony.ubah at gloworld.com>.ng
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 1:00 PM <rpd-request at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>>
> To: Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com <mailto:pascosoft at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] End of LAST call
> Message-ID: <50853D8D-E109-4722-A818-6BD5E72A3345 at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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>> 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 <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 <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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <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 <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 <mailto:nishal at controlfreak.co.za>>
> To: Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com <mailto:pascosoft at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] End of LAST call
> Message-ID: <B33DC27B-25FA-4CBD-BA54-70CDE43EB65D at controlfreak.co.za <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200201/a617f853/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list