[address-policy-wg] Policy update request on certification of transferred IPv4 allocations

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Andrew de la Haye <
ripencc-management at ripe.net> wrote:

> [Apologies for duplicate emails]
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Based on recent discussions on the RIPE Address Policy WG mailing list,
> the RIPE NCC is now seeking policy related action from the RIPE
> community with regards to clear guidelines on how it should proceed with
> certifying transferred IPv4 allocations.
>
> It has recently come to our notice, via two of the policy authors, that
> the original intention (in 2007) of the sentence "Re-allocated blocks
> will be signed to establish the current allocation owner" was that the
> transferred block *must* be signed *after* the transfer in order to
> completely establish holdership.
>
> This sentence can be found under section 5.5 of "IPv4 Address Allocation
> and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" here:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582#Transfers-of-Allocations
>
> Because the RIPE community provided guidance saying that certification
> should be an opt-in system, the RIPE NCC built an RPKI Certification
> system based on this opt-in notion, therefore it is not currently
> possible for the RIPE NCC to issue certificates without the resource
> holder initiating the process.
>
> Therefore, the RIPE NCC's interpretation and implementation of this
> specific sentence has been:
>
> Registration Services verifies and reflects the change in holdership of
> the re-allocated blocks by updating the database objects and internal
> records following the transfer. Any certificates that had been attached
> to these number resources before the transfer automatically become
> invalid/revoked due to the holdership change. The transfer recipient can
> then request a new certificate for the address space and the RIPE NCC
> will proceed to sign these resources to establish the current allocation
> holder.
>
> Therefore, the RIPE NCC does not make certification of any resources
> mandatory.
>
> As the sentence in section 5.5 of "IPv4 Address Allocation and
> Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is open to
> interpretation, the RIPE NCC is seeking representative(s) from the RIPE
> community to submit an update to ripe-582 that will replace this
> sentence with more accurate and appropriate wording or perhaps remove it
> completely.
>

How about replacing;

"Re-allocated blocks will be signed to establish the current allocation
owner."

with:

"Re-allocated blocks will be signed to establish the current allocation
holder if the receiving party chooses."

??


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130221/5872ca99/attachment.html>