<div dir="auto">I still oppose this policy and mostly agree with denis.<div dir="auto"> </div><div dir="auto">I don't think it makes sense to push through this policy currently given the concerns raised and the quite limited potential benefits.</div><div dir="auto"> </div><div dir="auto">-Cynthia</div></div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, 15:05 denis walker, <<a href="mailto:ripedenis@gmail.com">ripedenis@gmail.com</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Jeroen Looking back over this email, there are two things that really stand out to me. "Do you already use AGGREGATED-BY-LIR when registering IPv6 assignments? Would you find it convenient and useful to be able to register IPv4 assignments in the same way?" "the statement «When an End User has a network using public address space this must be registered separately with the contact details of the End User» found in the current policy (and removed by 2023-04 in order to bring the wording in line with that of the IPv6 policy)" These two statements that you made basically sum up this policy proposal. You are suggesting we fundamentally change IPv4 address policy for the 'convenience' of operators and to 'align' some words between two different policies regardless of the consequences. When you add to this a comment Gert made at RIPE 87 when he said that after 30 years we have no clue as to what the "admic-c:" attribute means or why anyone would want to contact them or what they would expect to get from such contact. We have maybe 5 or 6 million inetnum objects in the RIPE Database, a few million inet6num objects and probably tens of thousands of aut-num objects. They all have a mandatory admin-c and we don't know why it is there. All we have is a 30 year old definition that says it must be an on-site contact for the End User in the case of assignment and ASNs. This is a dreadful situation to be in. I suggest that 2023-04 is withdrawn. Then we have a wide reaching consultation with many stakeholder groups who use the RIPE Database. Determine what their needs are for a public registry. What information they need and would like to have in the RIPE Database. Basically do what I expected the last database task force to do, produce a business requirements document for the RIPE Database as a public registry. Then see where we go from there. cheers denis On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 19:14, Jeroen Lauwers <<a href="mailto:jlauwers@a2b-internet.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jlauwers@a2b-internet.com</a>> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > Though we recognise that most of you are probably busy preparing for the upcoming holidays, we would like to ask you to share your opinion on proposal 2023-04. Remember that Policy Development Process requires any comments made during the Discussion phase must be repeated during the Review phase in order to count towards or against rough consensus, as your views can now take the RIPE NCC’s Impact Analysis into account. > > Here are some questions for the WG to get the discussion started: Do you already use AGGREGATED-BY-LIR when registering IPv6 assignments? Would you find it convenient and useful to be able to register IPv4 assignments in the same way? Does 2023-04 address this use case well in its current form, or could you think of any potential improvements? > > We hope you will find the time to let your voice be heard! > > The Policy Development Process requires the proposers to adequately address any suggestions for changes or objections to the proposal in each phase, which we will do below. > > 1. Does 2023-04 change the contact registration requirements for assignments? > > > The argument made is that the statement «When an End User has a network using public address space this must be registered separately with the contact details of the End User» found in the current policy (and removed by 2023-04 in order to bring the wording in line with that of the IPv6 policy), implicitly requires LIRs to register non-delegated/outsourced contact information for the End User in the RIPE database, not necessarily in the mandatory «admin-c» or «tech-c» attributes, but possibly in an optional attribute like «descr», «org» or «remarks». > > Proposers’ response: > > We do not believe so, for the following reasons, and keeping the current practice and policies in consideration: > > The RIPE NCC does not consider that 2023-04 changes the contact registration requirements in any way[1][2][3]. Absent any (rough) consensus in the Working Group to the contrary, we defer to the RIPE NCC’s judgement on this point. > The practice of creating assignments with all contact information delegated is already widespread. If this was a policy violation made possible due to the RIPE NCC implementing RIPE policy incorrectly, we would have expected the community to take action to correct this situation. However, no such policy proposal has been put forward by the community. > Outsourcing and delegation of contact information is a common practice across many industries, including in networking and information technology. There is no policy language that explicitly prohibits this for IPv4 assignments. Absent that, we believe any implicit prohibition found “between the lines” is essentially «void for vagueness»[4]. > An obligation to publish the End User’s contact information in the RIPE database will constitute a violation of Article 6(3) of the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions[5] and Article 6(1)(a) of the GDPR[6], if the End User’s contact person has not given explicit consent to such publication. We believe that the RIPE policy cannot reasonably be interpreted to require LIRs to break EU law (and even if it explicitly did require that, EU law would still take precedence). > The policy’s stated goal of registering assignments is «to ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet troubleshooting at all levels»[7]. Requiring LIRs to publish the contact information of End Users who often will not have any knowledge or capability to aid with troubleshooting does work towards this attaining goal. On the contrary, delegating the contact information to the LIR/ISP may well be the only way to attain this goal. > > > [1] <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-September/013856.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-September/013856.html</a> > [2] <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04#impact-analysis" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04#impact-analysis</a> > [3] <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-November/013892.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-November/013892.html</a> > [4] <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/void_for_vagueness" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/void_for_vagueness</a> > [5] <a href="https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/terms" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/terms</a> > [6] <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679#d1e1888-1-1" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679#d1e1888-1-1</a> > [7] <a href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-804#3" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-804#3</a> > > 2. The «assignment-size» attribute should be a CIDR prefix length > > Leaving it undefined could result in some LIRs using it to represent an IPv4 address count, while others would use it to represent a CIDR prefix length. > > Proposers’ response: > > We agree «assignment-size» should be a CIDR prefix length. We understand that, if proposal 2023-04 would be accepted, the RIPE NCC could implement the «assignment-size» attribute for IPv4 inetnum objects to be a CIDR prefix length, and document it as such. Therefore we do not believe it is necessary to spell this out explicitly in the policy document (it is not spelled out in the IPv6 policy document either). > > > Thank you for your attention and enjoy your holidays! > > Best regards, > Jeroen and Tore > > > Op 21 nov. 2023, om 11:13 heeft Angela Dall'Ara <<a href="mailto:adallara@ripe.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">adallara@ripe.net</a>> het volgende geschreven: > > > Dear colleagues, > > Policy proposal 2023-04, “Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments”, is now in the Review Phase. > > The goal of this proposal is to introduce the AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments to reduce LIR efforts in registration and maintenance. > > This proposal has been updated and it is now at version 2.0. The proposed policy text did not change, the only difference is that the section "Arguments opposing the proposal" includes a reference to the last round of discussion. > > The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this proposal to support the community’s discussion. > > You can find the proposal and impact analysis at: > <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04</a> > <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04#impact-analysis" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04#impact-analysis</a> > And the draft document at: > <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04/draft" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04/draft</a> > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Review Phase is to continue the discussion of the proposal taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. > > At the end of the Review Phase, the Working Group (WG) Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. > It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. > > We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and to send any comments to <a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a> before 20 December 2023. > > Kind regards, > Angela Dall'Ara > Policy Officer > RIPE NCC > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> </blockquote></div>