Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period until 9 July on revised RIPE Policy document for IPv6 database objects
Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-513, "Value of the "status:" and "assignment-size:" attributes in INET6NUM objects for sub-assigned PA space". A draft of the policy document is online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-docu... The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 9 July 2013 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy Working Group at <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>. Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Dear Andrea Cima, address-policy-wg, Since it is not included as an option, is there any reason why simply reassigning the AS numbers after a period of time, but notifying object maintainers which reference the AS number that this has occurred (or is about to occur) would not be the best solution? Keeping limited resources out of the recycling pool because of laziness or lack of situational awareness of some operators seems like a poor approach. Butchering object and outdated RPSL policies of operators and replacing them with selectively less outdated versions automatically seems undesirable as well since it may break any further operator automation which (wrongfully or not) may rely on those objects. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 06/25/2013 03:29 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear colleagues,
As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-513, "Value of the "status:" and "assignment-size:" attributes in INET6NUM objects for sub-assigned PA space".
A draft of the policy document is online and ready for community review at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-docu...
The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 9 July 2013 to allow the community more time to give their feedback.
Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy Working Group at <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>.
Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Dear address-policy-wg, This has unintentionally gone out as a reply to Emilio's post '[address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period until 9 July on revised RIPE Policy document for IPv6 database objects' but was meant as a response to Andrea's post '[address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Reassigning Referenced ASNs'; my apologies. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 06/25/2013 04:05 PM, David Monosov wrote:
Dear Andrea Cima, address-policy-wg,
Since it is not included as an option, is there any reason why simply reassigning the AS numbers after a period of time, but notifying object maintainers which reference the AS number that this has occurred (or is about to occur) would not be the best solution?
Keeping limited resources out of the recycling pool because of laziness or lack of situational awareness of some operators seems like a poor approach.
Butchering object and outdated RPSL policies of operators and replacing them with selectively less outdated versions automatically seems undesirable as well since it may break any further operator automation which (wrongfully or not) may rely on those objects.
-- Respectfully yours,
David Monosov
On 06/25/2013 03:29 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear colleagues,
As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-513, "Value of the "status:" and "assignment-size:" attributes in INET6NUM objects for sub-assigned PA space".
A draft of the policy document is online and ready for community review at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-docu...
The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 9 July 2013 to allow the community more time to give their feedback.
Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy Working Group at <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>.
Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On 25/06/2013 14:29, Emilio Madaio wrote:
A draft of the policy document is online and ready for community review at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-docu...
There's a typo in section 3.0:
you would create an object similar to:
inet6num: 2000::/46
status:
I'm guessing that this is a deliberate typo to check whether people actually review policy updates from the readability project :-) Otherwise it looks fine to me. Nick
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 03:29:45PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-docu...
May I express some doubts about the 'cosmetic surgery project'? The project was introduced as early as October 2009 and RIPE 513 was published in February 2011. What appears to happen is a very late post publication copy editing. In this particular case, the policy itself is a change to the database attributes and - other than, say, address allocation/assignment policies - not very likely read its own. Any structural changes to the document (where's the template, by the way?) and changes to style (passive voice here and there) or readability might better be invested in the general database documentation. The new draft eliminates the data protection aspect from the introduction/motivation section, which I consider a loss. The abstract wins, though. The draft continues to use 2000::/46 for the example where some chunk of 2001:DB8::/32 as per RFC 3849 might be a better choice. -Peter
Dear Peter, thank you very much for your input and remark. I apologize if I forgot to include the IPv6 and Database WG mailing lists as decided during RIPE 66 on request of the community. I slavishly followed the procedure defined by the Cosmetic Surgery Project that was meant for the Address Policy WG mailing list only. The original announcement for the extended Review Phase is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-June/007931.ht... For further feedback the draft of the policy document is online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-docu... Please send your feedback on this draft document before 9 July 2013. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC On 6/25/13 5:51 PM, Peter Koch wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 03:29:45PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-docu...
May I express some doubts about the 'cosmetic surgery project'? The project was introduced as early as October 2009 and RIPE 513 was published in February 2011. What appears to happen is a very late post publication copy editing. In this particular case, the policy itself is a change to the database attributes and - other than, say, address allocation/assignment policies - not very likely read its own. Any structural changes to the document (where's the template, by the way?) and changes to style (passive voice here and there) or readability might better be invested in the general database documentation.
The new draft eliminates the data protection aspect from the introduction/motivation section, which I consider a loss. The abstract wins, though. The draft continues to use 2000::/46 for the example where some chunk of 2001:DB8::/32 as per RFC 3849 might be a better choice.
-Peter
participants (4)
-
David Monosov -
Emilio Madaio -
Nick Hilliard -
Peter Koch