[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

Hi Denis,

On 11/01/24 03:20, denis walker wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 13:02, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/01/24 11:25, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>>> Or you could take the other stance and stop publishing *any* contact
>>> details regarding an object, because you cannot know whether the
>>> information is personal data or not.
>> Exactly. LIRs may (but are not required to) chose this approach already
>> *today*. This is a common and long-standing practice which the RIPE NCC
>> has repeatedly clarified as compliant with today's policy.
> This is one of your biggest false statements. The ONLY person
> repeatedly saying this is YOU. Let's do a fact check here.

Yes, let us indeed do a fact check:

Exhibit 1: 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-September/013856.html

Exhibit 2: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04 
(specifically the «counter-argument», which the RIPE NCC Policy Officer 
confirmed to the proposers and the WG chairs as correctly representing 
the RIPE NCC's interpretation)

Exhibit 3: 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04#impact-analysis

Exhibit 4: 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-November/013892.html

Four repetitions so far, all saying the same thing. How many more do you 
need?

We note that you have requested further clarifications from the RIPE NCC 
tonight, which we of course look forward to.

> This is total madness. You keep saying you have no intention of
> changing anything else. You keep saying the wording change actually
> changes nothing in practice. Some other people don't agree with you.
> Just don't change wording that you claim changes NOTHING and has
> nothing to do with aggregation and everyone is happy. The fact that
> you are pushing so hard to make this wording change, you refuse to
> back down or compromise, you insist on changing wording that changes
> nothing and has nothing to do with aggregation...proves that you don't
> believe that yourself. The fact is, I suspect that this is the real
> change you want. You want to drop the current policy requirement to
> define assignments with End User contacts. It is the aggregation that
> is the side issue here. There is no other explanation for why you are
> insisting so strongly on changing wording that changes nothing.

Here we find ourselves in conspiracy theory land, frankly. It makes zero 
sense, too:

If our ulterior goal was to remove the End User contacts from our own 
assignments we can just go ahead and do so, right now. The RIPE NCC is 
already on the record saying that's totally OK, and we would be 
following in the footsteps of many other LIRs who have already done so. 
Why on Earth would we waste our time on a policy proposal?

If our ulterior goal was to remove the End User contacts from other 
LIRs' assignments, 2023-04 simply doesn't accomplish this goal, because 
it conveys no requirement on LIRs to remove anything from the database 
whatsoever.

The RIPE NCC has not identified any unintended or ulterior side effect 
caused by 2023-04 either, does that mean they are a part of the 
conspiracy too?


>> As the RIPE NCC writes in the Impact Analysis (emphasis added):
>>
>>       «Acceptance of this proposal **will not change** the fact that the
>> RIPE NCC cannot enforce which contact details members add to their IPv4
>> PA assignments in the RIPE Database; this **will remain** their decision.»
>>
>> So, once again: which End User contact details LIRs publish (if any) is
>> their decision today, and it will be continue to be their decision if
>> 2023-04 passes. Hence, 2023-04 does not effect any change in this regard.
> This really does make me cry. The wording in the IA is poor. You have
> applied an interpretation to this which I do not believe is what was
> meant. Then the RIPE NCC legal team has remained silent. So I am
> asking the RIPE NCC legal team to clearly explain what they meant by
> this wording.

The explanation you request was posted two days after the Impact 
Analysis was:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-November/013892.html

«LIRs are free to choose how to provide services and to who, this 
includes their freedom to take over the responsibility as the point of 
contact for their End User as well as having their maintainer in the 
IPv4 PA assignments they register.»

This explanation aligns perfectly with our interpretation of the 
statement in the Impact Analysis.

>> Given that, it is hard to see how we could possibly amend the proposal
>> to change this particular point to an even lesser extent than what is
>> already the case?
> Let me help you. Do NOT remove a sentence that has nothing to do with
> the stated goal of the proposal to aggregate assignments and that you
> claim does not change anything.

This sentence also has a lot to do with the stated goal of aggregating 
assignments, because it mandates that assignments must be «registered 
separately». That is clearly incompatible with aggregation.

It would of course be possible to retain the old sentence as-is by 
combining it with the new one copied from the IPv6 policy by using an 
either/or construct, e.g.:

«When an End User has a network using public address space this must be 
registered separately with the contact details of the End User or by 
inserting an object with a status value of 'AGGREGATED-BY-LIR'».

That said, the actual policy outcome would as far as we can tell be 
exactly the same as 2023-04 in its current form, so we assume you would 
object to this language as well?


Tore & Jeroen