[address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)

Tore Anderson wrote:

> * Sander Steffann
> 
> 
>>Looking at the feedback I see two types of responses:
>>- The policy proposal is good as it is
>>- Information on rejected transfer should be anonymised
>>
>>We could suggest to the proposer to add the 'anonymise rejected transfers' bit to the proposal, but we are not sure if that would gain support on one side while losing support from people who like the policy proposal as it currently is...
>>
>>So... Again your feedback please! Is there anyone who thinks that anonymising details of rejected transfers is a bad idea? (and if so: please explain why)
> 
> 
> I object to publishing information of rejected transfers (and, by
> extension, rejected pre-approvals).

I concur, strongly.

It would be useful, though to have some sort of aggregate data about failures,
like e.g. #of failed vs successful transactions, granularity of requests, and
the like. I haven't thought to the end of this stick, yet :-)

> The NCC does not publish any
> information about rejected PA allocation requests either, and I don't
> see why transfers should be any different.

I agree.

[...]

> I think that a simpler and probably much faster way (no PDP!) to
> accomplish the desired «transparency in address block transfers» would
> be to simply ask the NCC to publish historic versions of alloclist.txt,

Well, I don't like the idea of publicly and easily offering such a history.
	[This is with my security team hat on :-) Although, with the same
	 hat on, I would love to have such a thing...]

As the NCC has to shorten the quarantine period for returned or reclaimed
addresses, offering this may be painful for the new/current holders of the
resource.

On top of that, from a formal perspective, if there is no longer a (contractual)
relationship with the NCC, I do not see a sound basis for the NCC to make old
data publicly accessible.

> and/or to include a regid/LIR column for resources in
> delegated-ripencc-extended-latest (for which historic archives are
> available). This has been recently suggested in the services wg, but it
> was objected to, because of privacy issues for assignment holders (so
> irrelevant relevant to this proposal). I think I'll go and revive that
> thread now...
> 
> Oh, and by the way: why specify exactly monthly? As noted above, the NCC
> has no problems publishing most of this information on a daily basis. If
> they are able to automatically publish the transfer list daily too, why
> not let them?

I'd rather like the NCC to come forward with a proposal of how to make the
requested data available, and describe its format(!) than prescribing details
in a formal policy. The mechanism may even be a webpage or feed that gets
updated when the DB gets updated to reflect the transfer :-)

Wilfried.