[rpd] final decision on AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01 "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space" (last call)

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Hi co-chairs and community, please see in-line at the bottom...

Le mer. 12 févr. 2020 à 15:54, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <
oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> a écrit :


> *Dear PDWG*

>

> * Apologies for the slow response,  co-chairs have been caught up with

> work lately.    Below is a list of objections that were raised. *

>

>

>

>    1. Objection point:

>

> - [ ] Some technicalities- human or machine error in revoking the AS0

> state- are unresolved which would affect the implication of this policy

>

>

>

> Author:Taiwo Oyewande

>

>

>

> Content:

>

> Are resources reclaimed by Afrinic regarded as bogons, how long after

> reclaim of such resources will they be given a ROA with origin AS0?

>

>

>

> What happens in the case of human or machine error in revoking the AS0

> state. Which can lead to DOS of the resource holder. I think there are some

> technicalities unresolved that affect the implication of this policy which

> needs to be looked at before moving forward with this policy

>

>

>

>

>

>    1. Objection Point:

>

> - [ ] The policy involving Afrinic in the routing would impact staff due

> to the multiple checks post-implementation

>

> - [ ] Afrinic’s operation details should then be considered

>

> - [ ] policy is not effective as we only have single-digit percentile of

> resource allocation -> should be implemented on global scope

>

>

>

> Author:Anthony Ubah

>

>

>

> Content:

>

> >From my understanding, if the policy involves AfriNIC in the routing

>

>

>

> process, it is impacting on staff as there must be multiple checks

>

> post-implementation to mitigate accidental/malicious DOS. In this case,

>

> don't you think AfriNIC's operational details should also be considered as

>

> well in certain policies like this which are impacting?

>

> I'm not abreast of staff impact assessment in the previous presentations,

>

> so please offer me some clarity.

>

>

>

> Finally looking at this from the AfriNIC lens, with our single-digit

>

> percentile of resource allocation, how effective will this policy be if

>

> other RIRs with bigger resources don not have an equivalent implementation?

>

> I think this will only be truly efficient if implemented on a global scope,

>

> starting from the RIRs with the bulk of resources.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>    1. Objection Point: a lot of people questioned the impact of this

>    policy and the operational overhead of it

>

>

>

> Author:Rob Evans

>

>

>

> Content: > It has been already submitted to RIPE and we are waiting right

> now for the impact analysis. I think unless the impact analysis finds

> anything really terrible (which I don’t think is the case), it will reach

> consensus.

>

>

>

>

>

> Your reading of the discussion is different to mine. I think so far a

>

> number of people have questioned the impact this will have, and the

>

> operational overhead to implement it, so I'm not convinced we should

>

> jump to conclusions. :)

>

>

>

>

>

>    1. Objection Point:

>

> - [ ] Questioning if they have enough data on the operational impact of

> RIRs (asking for clarification)

>

> - [ ] The policy has no great impact due to the number of resources within

> the jurisdiction of AfriNIC.

>

> - [ ] the policy is not global/unifrom enough which would create

> additional and unreasonable stress.

>

>

>

> Author:Anthony Ubah

>

>

>

> Content:

>

> Although you haven't provided adequate clarity on impact, which I think

>

> must be put into good consideration.

>

> Quoting my previous comment, " I'm not abreast of staff impact assessment

>

> in the previous presentations, so please offer me some clarity"

>

> Do we have data on the operational implication/Impact of other RIRs that

>

> have this ion consideration, and/or that which has adopted and implemented

>

> it?

>

>

>

> Also, I'm still curious about the effectiveness of this policy if it is

>

> implemented on RIR to RIR basis. I think it will be of no great impact,

>

> judging by the number of resources within the jurisdiction of AfriNIC.

>

>

>

> I honestly think this policy is very operational and should be reviewed.

>

> Only a global policy will be reasonable because a none uniform policy might

>

> create additional and unreasonable stress.

>

>

>

>

>

>    1. Objection Point:

>

> - [ ] Concern about the implementation process due to errors such as

> “timing and wrong route origin authorisation” previously discussed

>

>

>

> Author: Taiwo Oyewande

>

>

>

> Content:

>

> My main concern about this proposal still remains how smooth the

> implementation can be (automated or manual). I recommend an additional

> clause be added to the proposal to limit implementation errors such as

> “timing and wrong route origin authorisation” previously discussed

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>    1. Objection Point:

>

> - [ ] Asks for a staff impact analysis to clear confusions

>

> - [ ] Concerned about how timelines for revocations and new allocations

> might be affected by the revocation of AS0 VRP and how this will disappear

> from validator caches worldwide

>

>

>

>

>

> Author: Paschal Ochang

>

>

>

> Content:

>

> The perceived impacts will continue to be there until perhaps a staff

>

> impact analysis probably clears the air and this is one of the reasons I

>

> supported the staff impact analysis which was opposed by some. I also have

>

> some concerns regarding how timelines for revocations and new allocations

>

> might be affected by the revocation of AS0 VRP and how this will disappear

>

> from validator caches worldwide.

>

>

>

>

>

>    1. Objection point:

>

> - [ ] Government would take all the control of RPKI and hence unable to

> ensure users can use the Internet freely and legitimately.

>

>

>

> Author: Blaise Fyama

>

>

>

> Content:

>

> I do not support the RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned Afrinic

>

> Address Space policy as it raises the concern about the control of

>

> internet; should we have to let the government take all control of RPKI and

>

> therefore representing a risk on how to make sure the use of Internet free

>

> and legitimate. I therefore object it on the the engagement of a free

>

> internet controlled by the community and its users.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>    1. Objection Point:

>

> - [ ] The proposal centralises the control of the internet to the

> government.

>

>

>

> Author: Kakel Mbumb

>

>

>

> Content:

>

> The proposal for RPKI is not applicable as it centralises the control of

>

> internet; and also represents a potential risk for government to overtake

>

> it.

>

> We are a community and need to be independent on the way we treat our

>

> resources.

>

>

>

>

>

>    1. Objection Point:

>

> - [ ] RPKI does not stop boon

>

> - [ ] it centralises the control of internet to the government

>

>

>

> Author: Kakel Mbumb

>

>

>

> Content:

>

> Hello all, i think RPKI asks for bogon but does not stop bogon and it shall

>

> not involve in routing issue. Do we really want it to centralise the

>

> control of the internet because it can present potential risk for

>

> government to overtake it.

>

> Regards..

>

>

>

>

>

>    1. Objection Point: same as above

>

>

>

> Author: Kakel Mbumb

>

>

>

> Content:

>

> Hello Jordi, what I mean is RPKI centralises the control of the Internet

>

> and allows AFRINIC to create ROAs for all unallocated and unassigned

>

> address space under its control. Only AFRINIC has the authority to create

>

> RPKI ROAs for address space not yet allocated or assigned to its members.

>

> This thus concentrates the control of the internet to AFRINIC.

>

>

>

> *We have also critically examined the response(s) from the authors and we

> still believe that this proposal requires more discussion on a number of

> the issue raised hence we are not yet recommending it for ratification. *

>


I was expecting the results of your examination of both objections and
responses from authors to tell:
⁃ why is objection relevant
⁃ Why authors responses do not address the objections
⁃ What need more discussion
The  discussion points  could then set the expectations for the further
discussions as you seem to recommend.
if we don’t follow this, we  will once again end up in an endless dialogue.
That is what the cochairs job is about., but  we are still at i/we believe”




> *We also understand that the community has a diverse voice on this

> proposal. However, Co-chairs want to emphasise the fact that we are human

> beings.  If anyone finds some error in our decisions you are welcome to

> appeal it in line with the CPM.*

>


The PDP has provision for appeal as disagreement may happen and had
happened before... I dont see why you have to emphasize the fact that you
are “human beings”. Is there a hidden message?

*Disclaimer*
This message is not intended to influence the appeal process, but just to
help improve the PDP,



> Thanks

>

> Co-Chair PDWG

>

> .

>

>

>

--
Arnaud



>

>

>

>

>

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:15 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <

> jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:

>

>> By the way, just to clarify one of my points.

>>

>> The message from the chairs (

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010326.html), indicates "we

>> believe it requires more discussion", and according the CPM 3.4.3, it may

>> be interpreted as extending the last call.

>>

>> So, unless either the co-chairs clarify that, or the appeal committee has

>> the same interpretation on that message, the appeal need to be submitted

>> within 2-weeks of that message (which is today).

>>

>> Regards,

>> Jordi

>> @jordipalet

>>

>>

>>

>> El 12/2/20 13:59, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net>

>> escribió:

>>

>>     Hi co-chairs, all,

>>

>>     I don't want to put any pressure on you, I fully understand how

>> difficult is to take decisions in the PDP, but in my opinion, as well as

>> other co-authors and other participants from the PDWG, there was not any

>> justified objection during the last call.

>>

>>     However, by chance (I was looking for something else in the CPM) I

>> just realized that the procedure in the CPM, as per section 3.5.2, states

>> that an appeal must be submitted within 2 weeks of the public knowledge of

>> the decision.

>>

>>     I don't know if you already looked at this deadline and we should

>> already expect your response in the next few hours.

>>

>>     Otherwise, as this 2-weeks period expires today, we need to take a

>> decision, *unless* the Appeal Committee can respond to this message,

>> confirming that they will consider the 2-weeks period only starting once

>> the co-chairs re-confirm its decision. I think this is feasible, because

>> they already mention they are hearing the inputs and working on it.

>>

>>     Thanks for responding as promptly as possible (and maybe wasting time

>> in an appeal if not really needed).

>>

>>     Regards,

>>     Jordi

>>     @jordipalet

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

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

>>     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

>>

>>

>>

>>

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

>> 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.

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin

> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal

> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal

> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20200215/b6f126b4/attachment-0001.html>