This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Mon Jan 15 18:46:04 CET 2018
Hi Jordi, > [Jordi] I think we are in-sync, but your response clearly demonstrates that there is a need for clarifying the text. > -> Policy proposal “Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes)” > -> a /64 is a prefix Technically, because the router is the PI holder's, you're not delegating a /64. You're allowing a customer to do i.e. SLAAC on a /64 of the PI holder. And Max is correct: when in doubt the RIPE NCC will check the rationale behind a policy proposal to make decisions, and they have clearly and explicitly stated that this is how they will interpret and implement it. Therefore there is no discrepancy between the text and the impact. > The text is not concrete enough so to be enforced in the evaluation (again, unless the NCC read the arguments and not the policy text). The NCC reads both. This has explicitly been discussed before, and both the NCC and the working group confirmed that we don't want policy text that is too specific because reality is more complex than policy, and if we would try to make the policy complexity match that of reality then we would end up with horrible policy. The community has agreed not to micro-manage the NCC, and the NCC has promised to apply common sense when implementing policy. We also have a dedicated slot in the working group session where the NCC gives feedback on how things are going, where they have encountered any issues and where reality has changed so much that maybe the working group might want to look into changing policy. There have been many cycles of micromanaging the NCC to writing vague policy and letting the NCC sort out the details. In both cases the NCC was blamed for everything. After many years of hard work we have reached a balance where the working group and the NCC work together to make policy that is one the one hand giving guidance to the NCC about what the community wants, but also leaves some room for the NCC (along with the accompanying responsibility) to adapt to changes and to apply some common sense. Other organisations in the internet constellation have moved to a more legalese mindset, but I think as the RIPE community we are proud that we have evolved enough that we don't need that anymore and can actually work together pleasantly without setting everything in stone. Cheers, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]