[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 02:43:18PM -0400, McTim wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt

I'm not sure whether RFC2050 or this personal draft is very relevant 
for decisions we do in RIPE community (and I've said so before).

I consider the IETF to be not responsible at all anymore for the way
the IANA and the RIRs handle IP address and ASN management - they have
delegated the space to IANA, and accepted the existance of a bottom-up
policy process for the local policies in the respective regions.

RFC2050 *itself* acknowledges this in in the IESG note - it describes
the *then* best current practice (in 1996).  To quote from the Abstract:

"  This document describes the IP assignment policies currently used by
   the Regional Registries to implement the guidelines developed by the
   IANA. The guidelines and these policies are subject to revision at
   the direction of the IANA. The registry working group (IRE WG) will
   be discussing these issues and may provide advice to the IANA about
   possible revisions."

it's not saying "the regional registries have to follow RFC2050", but
vice versa, RFC2050 describes what the RIRs have been doing at that 
time, and explains it to the IETF community - which is good and useful,
but should not be turned around.


Thus, I consider any argument against this proposal solely based on 
RFC2050 or draft-2050-bis to be about as weak as "we have never done 
it this way, so we can't start now!" - times have changed, and our 
IPv4 policy is full of hard-to-explain historic stuff, primarily targeted 
at a situation that does no longer exist (LIRs justifying the size of 
their next allocation to the RIPE NCC).  Therefore, I'd ask you to give 
it proper consideration, taking into account the fact that we're out of 
IPv4 addresses, and that this is not going to change any time soon.

(This topic actually has come up at the previous two RIPE meetings
when Rob Blokzijl presented his draft of an "IPv4 maintenance policy" -
which didn't make it into a formal policy proposal yet, but Tore's
proposal effectively does the same thing - leave in the policy document
what is still relevant, throw out the rest)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279