[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 01:27:43PM +0100, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

>> 4. Section 2.1 of the proposal allows Legacy Internet Resources
>> to be covered by the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement (SSA).
>> Modifications to the SSA will require approval by the General
>> Meeting (GM).
>
>	The GM has the necessary power.
>
>	I expect that it will be for a member with some interest
>	in legacy resources to bring forward a proposal that the
>	GM exercise this power.

+1

>> 7. In cases where the Legacy Resource Holder is unknown or
>> unresponsive, the proposal allows for the RIPE NCC to update
>> entries in the RIPE Database but does not specify the scope of
>> these updates.
>
>	The fact that a resource holder is unknown or unresponsive
>	should not be an obstacle to the RIPE NCC's exercise of
>	its responsibility for the data it holds.  Circumstances
>	may arise in which there is a compelling reason for the
>	RIPE NCC to make an update.  The RIPE NCC is empowered
>	and trusted to act responsibly.


This would appear to empower the NCC to unilaterally, de-register or
even re-register such resources. (which is, IIRC, what the NCC
originally proposed and what triggered this proposal)
Maybe we should limit this to changing the relevant objects to "Unknown"
or similar...


>> 8. The provision of some RIPE NCC services is dependent on whether
>> the resources are PA or PI. The RIPE NCC will require clear
>> guidelines on the terms under which Legacy Internet Resources
>> would be offered these services.
>
>	Only Registration Services are within scope for this
>	proposal.
>
>	Legacy resources are neither PA nor PI, but LEGACY,
>	and need to be supported by Registration Services.

+1

>> 10. If the proposal is accepted, the RIPE NCC will have to contact
>> Legacy Resource Holders that have their resources registered under
>> the umbrella of an LIR and offer them the contractual options of
>> the accepted proposal. The RIPE NCC will consider any requests for
>> this since 1992 as having never been submitted.
>
>	If such a LIR is acting as an ad-hoc registration intermediary,
>	the situation may be seen as sufficiently irregular as to
>	require attention whether or not the proposal is accepted.
>
>	Otherwise, a variation to a Sponsoring-LIR agreement will
>	be needed, which is the responsibility of each LIR involved.

If such registrations have been previously accepted by the NCC they
should be considered valid (subject to the above mentioned agreement 
variation) This shouldn't preclude offering the resource holder the
other contractual options, but should give them the option to continue
their existing relationship without going through another full
registration process.

>> 13. RIPE Database objects referring to Legacy Internet Resources
>> currently have several different "status:" attribute values.
>> The RIPE NCC proposes changing these to 'LEGACY'.
>
>	This seems reasonable.

+1

>> 14. The RIPE NCC also proposes introducing a mandatory "status:"
>> attribute for all AUT-NUM objects which would take the value
>> 'LEGACY' for all legacy AS numbers. For all other AS numbers
>> the values would either be set to 'ASSIGNED' (assigned by the
>> RIPE NCC) or 'OTHER' (assigned by other RIRs).
>
>	This also seems reasonable.

+1

rgds,
Sascha Luck