<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi Sandra, I see that the status of this proposal on the RIPE website is "Awaiting Decision from Proposer". The status has not changed since 02 July 2014 :) Do you have any updates on this policy proposal? @WG-chairs - is this proposal frozen now, waiting the result of 2014-02 or will it move to the next PDP step anytime soon? Kind regards, Elvis <meta charset="utf-8"> <meta charset="utf-8"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/06/14 23:02, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sandrabrown@ipv4marketgroup.com">sandrabrown@ipv4marketgroup.com</a> wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:20140623060243.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.161ac2a47c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> Tore, Thanks for your feedback. See below for comments. From: Tore Anderson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tore@fud.no"><tore@fud.no></a> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a> Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:53A7ECB6.60108@fud.no"><53A7ECB6.60108@fud.no></a> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I like it, overall. Clearly there are a few who are interested in engaging in inter-RIR transfers, and if we can facilitate for this without imposing any cost or burden on those who are not interested, I can see no reason to not do this. With regards to the proposals second argument against (regarding the re-introduction of "need" if another RIR insists), I do not consider that to be problematic at all, as it would be a burden that would be borne in its entirety by the entity voluntarily taking part in a transfer involving a "needy" RIR. I have some comments/suggested improvements though: 1) I concur with other posters that the use of ?LIR? should be avoided. However, I'd also like to add that suggested replacement ?organisation? could potentially also be problematic, as a resource holder could be a natural person rather than an organisation. It would be preferable to avoid getting in a situation where non-organsation resource holders would be prevented from engaging in inter-RIR transfers even though the resource-specific policy would allow for that. Therefore I would suggest using even more general language, such as ?resource holder?/?resource holder to be? or ?entity?. **** I think this is a very good point, thanks. Sandra 2) The proposal seeks to add the following paragraphs to ripe-606 section 5.5: ?When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the receiving LIR. When Internet number resources are transferred from another RIR, the RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfil any requirements of the sending RIR.? These additions seem completely redundant to me, as the new policy document says pretty much the same thing in sections 2.0 and 3.0. (Also, ?fulfill? is incorrectly spelled.) *** Thanks for pointing out this redundancy issue. *** Let me look into it with Marco and the Chairs, as to whether we *** would add the text or were making a statement of fact. *** Agree on spelling of fulfill. Thanks. Sandra 3) Also in ripe-606 section 5.5 the proposal seeks to add the following: ?If resources are transferred as legacy resources, the RIPE NCC will apply the legacy policy when accepting these resources.? This statement seems out of place to me: * ripe-606 does not apply to legacy resources, a fact which is implied by the new paragraph as well. The statement therefore voids itself. * Even if disregarding the above, ripe-606 only covers IPv4. Legacy resources also include ASNs. So if the resource is to be transferred is a legacy ASN, this transfer would be regulated by a piece of policy text located in the non-legacy IPv4 policy....which would to me be a completely nonsensical outcome. IMHO, the only sensible place to locate a statement that essentially says "legacy resources are governed by the legacy policy" is in, you guessed it, the legacy policy itself (ripe-605). We're in luck, because it already does just that. :-) *** I am not sure we will add that statement to the policy or if it is *** just a statement of fact: that legacy policy will apply, as you say. *** Let me check with Marco, as what you say makes total sense to *** me. Sandra So in summary, all of the additions 2014-05 seeks to do in ripe-605 seem redundant or out of place to me, accomplishing no actual policy change beyond adding bloat. Am I missing something? If not, I'd much rather prefer that ripe-605 is left alone by 2014-05. *** Yes the intention is not to add bloat but perhaps to re-confirm what *** is already there. Thanks a ton for your feedback, and of course for *** your support for the intent. *** Sandra Tore End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 34, Issue 15 ************************************************* </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>