Language Clarification in “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”

This policy proposal has been accepted

The new RIPE Document is: ripe-637

2014-08

State:: Accepted

Publication date

20 Oct 2014

Affects

ripe-452

Draft document

Draft

Author

Andrea Cima [RIPE NCC]

Proposal Version

1.0 - 20 Oct 2014

All Versions

Accepted

11 Mar 2015

Working Group

Address Policy Working Group

Proposal type

Modify

Policy term

Indefinite

New RIPE Document

ripe-637

Summary of Proposal

The RIPE NCC service region relies on clear and consistent policies. During RIPE 67, Jan Žorž raised the issue that the use of the word “should” could create unwanted ambiguity in policy documents.

According to RFC 2119, the term “should” means that there may exist valid reasons to ignore a particular item. Correspondingly, the term “must” means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

The RIPE NCC has reviewed “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders” and found one occasion where “should” was used while the content and context indicate that “must” would be the appropriate term.

The finding was presented during RIPE 68 and it was agreed that the policy text should be clarified.

This proposal aims to clarify the language in the RIPE Document “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”.

Policy Text

[The following text will update sections 2.0 in the RIPE Policy Document “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”, if the proposal reaches consensus.]

a. Current policy text

“2.0 Contractual Responsibilities of End Users and LIRs

The preferred model of the RIPE community is for End Users to have contractual relationship with a sponsoring LIR instead of directly with the RIPE NCC. The details of any such contracts are outside the scope of this document.

However, at the minimum, all contracts should include: [...]”

b. New policy text

“2.0 Contractual Responsibilities of End Users and LIRs

The preferred model of the RIPE community is for End Users to have a contractual relationship with a sponsoring LIR instead of directly with the RIPE NCC. The details of any such contracts are outside the scope of this document.

However, at the minimum, all contracts must include: [...]”

Rationale

a. Arguments supporting the proposal

Unambiguous understanding of the policy text
The policy text describes the minimum requirements for a contract, hence these requirements are mandatory

b. Arguments opposing the proposal

The change will reduce the level of flexibility when interpreting the policy text

Impact Analysis

Note: In order to provide additional information related to the proposal, details of an impact analysis carried out by the RIPE NCC are documented below. The projections presented in this analysis are based on existing data and should be viewed only as an indication of the possible impact that the policy might have if the proposal is accepted and implemented.

A. RIPE NCC's Understanding of the Proposed Policy

It is the RIPE NCC's understanding that this proposal clarifies the language in the RIPE Document “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" by removing unwanted ambiguity created by the term "should". Replacing this with the term "must" confirms the policy's intention of a mandatory requirement for the minimum content of contracts between End Users and sponsoring LIRs.

This is in line with current RIPE NCC procedures.