[address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)

On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

> Hi Carlos,

Hi,


> On 4/26/17 12:12 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
>>
>>  Greetings,
>>
>>  While the proposal's title seems to be a positive approach, as i read it,
>>  its main goal is to add extra requirements for LRH by changing «RIPE NCC
>>  Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders».
> The way I see it, this policy proposal does not add extra requirements, it 
> adds an extra service.

Which is exactly?
and who will benefit from it?
- only LRHs?
- the whole community?
- non-LRHs?


>>  I think protection (or just better alarms in place!) for Legacy address
>>  space is a good thing, however, i'm not sure an extra workload for the NCC
>>  and the LRH in the case they want to transfer their asset(s) is the way to
>>  go.
> the extra workload is a document signed by the representatives of the two LRH 
> (the Seller and the Buyer). The RIPE NCC verifies these kind of documents on 
> a daily basis so I doubt that would be a whole lot of extra workload - they 
> will confirm during the Impact Analysis.

Sure. And what would exactly configures a failed verification?


>>  I also agree with Sascha Luck's previous comment about LRH having to
>>  submit to an extra verification process.
> As mentioned in my response to Sascha's e-mail, the LRH can and will still be 
> able to update their objects in the RIPE Database even without any document 
> signed.

You mean the "selling LRH"...?
If my memory doesn't fail me, there are already some words about transfers 
on the current services' policy -- i need to double-check that.


> All this policy proposal does is that when the two parties want to finalise 
> the transfer

Is there a need for that...? How many LRH have expressed concerns about 
such a gap?


> and request RIPE NCC's confirmation,

LRHs currently don't need to do this...?


> they will need to sign a document.
> - the RIPE NCC would then verify the old holder is the legitimate LRH and

If the current holder has a services agreement in place with the NCC, this 
is already covered, right?


> - the RIPE NCC will also verify the transfer document is signed by authorised 
> signatories on both the old and the new LRH.

Here, i think the NCC will only need to get a new services agreement 
signed with the *new* holder, if the new holder wishes to...


>>  In its current terms, i also object to this proposal.
> Would there be any version that you would agree to, one that would 
> consistently allow the RIPE NCC to publish the transfers of Intra-RIR legacy 
> resources?

As i previously said, stats (and potential hijack alarms) are a good 
thing. But this version still needs a lot of work, and especially also 
strong support from the LRHs -- otherwise, this verification 
mechanism you're trying to suggest will not add anything...

And again, the NCC only has business regarding the services it provides to 
LRHs, but not over the address space itself... i think we are all aware 
about that bit.


Best Regards,
Carlos


> They currently publish all but these.
>>
>>  Best Regards,
>>  Carlos Friaças
>> 
> thank you,
> elvis
>
>