[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Gert, all,

Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having no objections, not a “democracy voting”.

I also feel that the way this has been done, extending the discussion, so allowing the proposer to participate in a conference, and then asking the participants to “speak up” to support his proposal, is not nice/fair. I recall that was mention in the list, or I heard it somewhere else …

This basically means that I can also do the same every month when I speak in about IPv6 in a conference, for any subsequent proposal that I submit, and get hundreds of “support voices” even if there is objection (for example to remove PI), or even more, I could register tons of emails and speak up in favor of my own proposal, and of course, there is nothing in the PDP that disallows that (if anyone is able to demonstrate that is my own voice cloned).

Note that I’m not saying I’m the kind of person that will do that, just to make clear why this is not fair and is not “consensus” in my opinion. In fact, my concern on this, is not just related to this proposal, but the process in general.

Furthermore, I will like a clarification from NCC about what I mention in the mike, I think is this comment:

      One of the opposing remark was that this would prevent "unique prefix 
      per host" style allocations, but that was addressed by Marco at the 
      APWG meeting already - the RS interpretation is "this would work".
    


Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
Fecha: viernes, 12 de enero de 2018, 16:27
Para: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

    Dear AP WG,
    
    so, the extended discussion phase ended some two weeks ago, and this is
    our conclusion: 
    
     - there were some voices that state "this is not going far enough, we
       should do a proper and more encompassing IPv6 policy review".  
    
       We've had the question on "shall we go there?" on the list, and 
       while there was some support, there was also some opposition to a 
       more general reorganization, so we're not going to this *in the scope 
       of this proposal*.  We can (and I assume we will :) ) return to the
       wider topic with more consideration in a separate proposal.
    
     - there was one voice that said "we have no problem with the policy here, 
       we do not need to do anything!" - which I considered addressed due to
       the NCC stating that they need better guidance
    
     - there were quite a number of supportive voices
     
        - some of them expressing (in their own words) that we should go 
          for the basic fix *now*, and we can always come back and improve
          things later on
    
    Thus, I declare that we have consensus according to PDP.
    
    With that, we move 2016-04 to Last Call.  Marco will send the formal 
    announcement for that in the next days.
    
    For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or 
    something else) in the previous review phase is appended below.  This is
    what I have based my decision on.
    
    If you disagree with my interpretation of what has been said and the
    conclusion I have drawn from it, please let us know.
    
    Gert Doering,
            Address Policy WG Chair
    
    
    Review Phase for V2.0, starting October 19, 2017
    (extended once, to December 27)
    
    During the last Review Phase X persons stated their support for this latest
    version of 2016-04:
    
    Ondrej Caletka    (with a remark about the risk of operator-abuse)
    Nick Hilliard
    David Farmer      (supporting the policy, but would prefer different language)
    Sebastian Wiesinger
    Erik Bais         (supporting any less restrictive PI policy, as long as the
                       "no documentation = /48" limit is kept)
    Richard Hartmann
    Sebastian Becker
    Matthias Kluth
    Leon Weber
    Arash Naderpour
    Peter Hessler 
    
    
    The following persons offered remarks, or asked for clarification
    
    Leo Vegoda, on "how does the RIPE NCC allocation algorithm work"
      (answered by Gert Doering, Andrea Cima.  Followup question by 
       Maximilian Wilhelm about PI assignment and reservations did not
       get an anwer, but since that sub-thread was mostly curiosity, I do
       not see it as directly relevant for consensus)
    
    
    The following people opposed the proposal:
    
    Jordi Palet, on the ground that "we want a better solution than just an
                 intermediate step, and this would be a complication"
     
      based on this, the WG chair started a sub-discussion "where does the
      WG want to go?" and there was no strong support to go to a stronger
      change (in particular for "removing the PI sub-assignment restrictions
      competely") - some support, but also very clear concern and opposition
    
      Comments on that sub-thread:
    
         Elvis Daniel Valea - asking for clarification
         Maximilian Wilhelm - "likes the idea, but thinks this will take
                              longer, so go with 2016-04 v2.0 as it is *now*"
         Elvis Daniel Valea - "this is just a patch, we can do better"
                              (supporting Jordi's extended proposal)
         Sebastian Wiesinger - "support 2016-04 as is, do not hold it up"
         Nick Hilliard - "this would be a substantial change and needs 
                          a good deal more attention" (I read: do not go there)
            (a bit more sub-sub-thread Jordi<->Nick, solidifying the "do not
             go there" stance)
         Erik Bais - "remove as much of the restriction as possible, but keep
                      the /48 PI limit" - which I read as "general support"
    
      One of the opposing remark was that this would prevent "unique prefix 
      per host" style allocations, but that was addressed by Marco at the 
      APWG meeting already - the RS interpretation is "this would work".
    
    
    Kai Siering - "we do not need this, the NCC is interpreting the policy
      all wrong".  As nobody else sees it that way, the chairs consider this
      objection addressed.
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.