2018-03 New Policy Proposal (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-03, "Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to fix outdated information in the RIPE Policy "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-03 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 May 2018. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Rather than updating the reference from RFC3330 to RFC6890, by the way, RFC6890 itself has been updated by RFC8190. Further, numerous RFCs have updated the registry since its creation by RFC5736 and its expansion by RFC6890. Therefore, I think it would be better to directly reference the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry" at its permanent URL ( https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry ), instead of referencing the RFC that created the registry. Note the registry itself references, RFC5736, RFC6980, and RFC8190 for its registry policies. Also, I think it would be useful to add a reference to RFC6598 "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space" to subsection 2, where RFC1918 is discussed. Note RFC6598 is distinct from RFC1918 but has a similar purpose. Thanks. On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-03, "Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy" is now available for discussion.
This proposal aims to fix outdated information in the RIPE Policy "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region".
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-03
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to < address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 May 2018.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
-- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
David Farmer wrote:
Rather than updating the reference from RFC3330 to RFC6890, by the way, RFC6890 itself has been updated by RFC8190. Further, numerous RFCs have updated the registry since its creation by RFC5736 and its expansion by RFC6890. Therefore, I think it would be better to directly reference the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry" at its permanent URL (https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry ), instead of referencing the RFC that created the registry.
This is sound. When we wrote RFC 6890 we intended to make the registry a stable and authoritative source, rather than have to update whatever the RFC was at the time that an assignment changed or a new assignment was made. Referencing the registry instead of an RFC makes sense. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda
Dear David and Leo, Thank you for your feedback. The initial version of the proposal focusses only on references to obsolete RFCs. Your suggestion of a direct reference the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry" instead of referencing the RFC sounds reasonable. If the Working Group feels that more updates to current references would improve the IPv4 policy, I will be happy to take this into account for an adjusted proposal version. Best regards, Andrea On 24/04/2018 16:48, Leo Vegoda wrote:
David Farmer wrote:
Rather than updating the reference from RFC3330 to RFC6890, by the way, RFC6890 itself has been updated by RFC8190. Further, numerous RFCs have updated the registry since its creation by RFC5736 and its expansion by RFC6890. Therefore, I think it would be better to directly reference the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry" at its permanent URL (https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry ), instead of referencing the RFC that created the registry. This is sound.
When we wrote RFC 6890 we intended to make the registry a stable and authoritative source, rather than have to update whatever the RFC was at the time that an assignment changed or a new assignment was made. Referencing the registry instead of an RFC makes sense.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
participants (4)
-
Andrea Cima -
David Farmer -
Leo Vegoda -
Marco Schmidt