Language Clarification for “Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC”

This policy proposal has been accepted

The new RIPE Document is: ripe-635

2014-11

State:: Accepted

Publication date

20 Oct 2014

Affects

ripe-476

Draft document

Draft

Author

Andrea Cima [RIPE NCC]

Proposal Version

1.0 - 20 Oct 2014

All Versions

Accepted

11 Mar 2015

Working Group

Address Policy Working Group

Proposal type

Modify

Policy term

Indefinite

New RIPE Document

ripe-635

Summary of Proposal

The RIPE NCC service region relies on clear and consistent policies. During RIPE 67, Jan Žorž raised the issue that the use of the word “should” could create unwanted ambiguity in policy documents.

According to RFC 2119, the term “should” means that there may exist valid reasons to ignore a particular item. Correspondingly, the term “must” means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

The RIPE NCC has reviewed “Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC” and found one occasion where “should” was used while the content and context indicate that “must” would be the appropriate term.

The finding was presented during RIPE 68 and it was agreed that the policy text should be clarified.

This proposal aims to clarify the language in the RIPE Document “Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC”.

Policy Text

[The following text will update will update sections 2.0 in the RIPE Policy Document “Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC”, if the proposal reaches consensus.]

a. Current policy text

“2.0 RIPE NCC as a Resource Holder

The RIPE NCC as a resource holder should fulfil the same basic requirements also expected of normal LIRs, such as returning unused resources.”

b. New policy text

“2.0 RIPE NCC as a Resource Holder

The RIPE NCC as a resource holder must fulfil the same basic requirements also expected of normal LIRs, such as returning unused resources.”

Rationale

a. Arguments supporting the proposal

Unambiguous understanding of the policy text
The RIPE NCC must be a good example and follow the same requirements as normal LIRs, without exceptions

b. Arguments opposing the proposal

The change will reduce the level of flexibility when interpreting the policy text

Impact Analysis

Note: In order to provide additional information related to the proposal, details of an impact analysis carried out by the RIPE NCC are documented below. The projections presented in this analysis are based on existing data and should be viewed only as an indication of the possible impact that the policy might have if the proposal is accepted and implemented.

A. RIPE NCC's Understanding of the Proposed Policy

It is the RIPE NCC's understanding that this proposal clarifies the language in the RIPE Document “Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC" by removing unwanted ambiguity created by the term "should". The replacement with the term "must" confirms the policy's intention that the RIPE NCC as a resource holder has to fulfil the same basic requirements as those expected of LIRs.

This is in line with current RIPE NCC procedures.