This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nigel Titley
nigel at titley.com
Wed Apr 21 15:09:46 CEST 2010
Dave Wilson wrote: > Hi Nigel, > > Good questions, thanks. > > I see what you mean. Let me characterise the problem like this: > > At this moment, if the RIPE community reaches consensus on a global > policy, and it is adopted in our region before all other regions have > adopted it, then there is still a risk that another region may propose a > change that we want to adopt. This risk could, in principle, slow down > the process of getting consensus in the RIPE region. > > The object of this proposal is to mitigate that risk, by allowing a > proposal to be adopted in the RIPE region specifically, but ensuring > that it can be revised if an alternative surfaces and reaches consensus. > But a global policy of course can't be implemented until it has been > adopted in all regions, and this proposal would not directly affect the > speed at which that occurs. So this allows a holding state, before the policy becomes instantiated in the RIPE region, from which it can be returned to a previous phase and allow changes (such as may have been made in another region), hence avoiding the startup delay? If so then I agree. Sounds like a fine idea. > Good point. There are two trapdoors though that can be "manually" > triggered in the event that a policy seems to be stuck - one by the RIPE > WG chairs, the other by the ASO AC. I have the feeling that adding a > fixed timeout would probably not help the process, which can be lengthy. > Does that sound reasonable? Yes, it does. Nigel
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]