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

Hi Jan,

On 11/01/24 10:19, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 9:45 AM Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
>
>     On 11/01/24 03:20, denis walker wrote:
>
>     > 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.
>
>
> Uh. While questioning your motives is perhaps a bit rude, this is WAY 
> over the top, Tore.
>
> Please retract this weird accusation, I really don't understand your 
> motives for trying to label this as having to do with a conspiracy 
> theory. It tarnishes the discussion.

This goes far beyond «questioning our motives». There is an assertion of 
"proof" that Jeroen deliberately make statements that we do not believe 
ourselves, in other words that we are lying to the working group. It is 
suggested that we are maliciously attempting to deceive the working 
group as to our true motives for submitting the policy proposal and what 
changes it will effect, and that the stated motive – introducing 
AGGREGATED-BY-LIR – is a mere "side issue" which is not our true, 
hidden, motive.

Presumably the RIPE NCC must also be actively participating in this 
deception, or at the very least turn a blind eye to it.

This ticks all the boxes in the Wikipedia definition of a conspiracy 
theory, with the possible exception that Jeroen and I could not 
reasonably be classified as a «powerful group».

That said, labels are unimportant, so consider the statement retracted. 
Let us instead say that we vehemently disagree with the allegation that 
there are any ulterior motives behind 2023-04 and that we are actively 
attempting to deceive the working group in any way.


> While you seem to argue that the RIPE NCC is both omniscient and 
> omnicompetent, I do not think it is that easy.
>
> I simply think that the RIPE NCC and you are mistaken.

That is fair enough. We note your disagreement with the RIPE NCC as 
well, which we take to mean you do not allege that we are actively and 
intentionally misrepresenting the RIPE NCC's position in our messages. 
That is something, at least.


> Continously appealing to RIPE NCC as the authority of policy and 
> policy interpretation is not a good thing.

The RIPE NCC is the secretariat of the RIPE Community and is delegated 
the task of implementing and enforcing the RIPE Community policies, as 
well as to providing training to the LIRs on how to operationalise said 
policies. If that is not an authority worth paying attention to, I do 
not know what is.

After all, any LIR which prefers the RIPE NCC interpretation of the 
policy in this regard is may simply adhere to it and act accordingly, 
and this is commonly done today. Thus the RIPE NCC's interpretation of 
the policy – mistaken or not – ends up becoming the (de facto) way the 
policy is implemented anyway.


Tore & Jeroen