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

Understood, even do, I will love to heard that from the NCC, because the disadvantage is that then to interpret the policy text, you need to read “all” the policy proposals, which I don’t think is very nice or useful.

Despite that, I still believe that my proposed text (or something a bit lighter, in the middle) is not changing the proposal goal, so not changing the consensus “status”, neither doing the “micro-management” that you mention, so it is acceptable as last call changes, of course if Max agree.

The benefit is that then it is very clear what we are looking for and a newcomer don’t need to look for the policy proposal, just read the policy text.

Here is again the text already lighter:

“Providing another entity with separate addresses (up to /64) from a subnet used on a link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a sub-assignment. This includes for example, letting visitors and/or employees (BYOD) connect to the assignment holder's network, connecting a server or appliance to an assignment holder's network and setting up point-to-point links with 3rd parties.”

To make it easy to compare, this is the existing proposal text:
“Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes) from a subnet used on a link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a sub-assignment. This includes for example letting visitors connect to the assignment holder's network, connecting a server or appliance to an assignment holder's network and setting up point-¬to-point links with 3rd parties.”

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 18:46
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

    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
    
    
    



**********************************************
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.