2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to clarify the wording used in ripe-699 regarding terms such as "organisation" and "LIR". The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - Clarifies when the subsequent allocation policy applies - Fixing some typos The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussing 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 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 send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 1 June 2018. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
There are a number of occurrences of "an LIR" (and also "An LIR") throughout the document that should be changed to "a LIR". Presumably only s/Organisation/LIR/ was done. Other than this grammar nit, I am happy the text matches the goal and I support it. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 03 May 2018 16:08 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to clarify the wording used in ripe-699 regarding terms such as "organisation" and "LIR". The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - Clarifies when the subsequent allocation policy applies - Fixing some typos The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussing 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 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 send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 1 June 2018. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more visit the Mimecast website.
If LIR is pronounced “Elle-Eye-Are” (which is how I pronounce it) then “an LIR” is correct. It would only be “a LIR” if you pronounce it “Lear”. http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/04/using-a-or-an-with-acronyms-and-ab... Scott
On May 4, 2018, at 1:42 AM, Ian Dickinson <Ian.Dickinson@tfmnetworks.com> wrote:
There are a number of occurrences of "an LIR" (and also "An LIR") throughout the document that should be changed to "a LIR". Presumably only s/Organisation/LIR/ was done.
Other than this grammar nit, I am happy the text matches the goal and I support it.
Ian
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 03 May 2018 16:08 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
Dear colleagues,
Policy proposal 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now in the Review Phase.
This proposal aims to clarify the wording used in ripe-699 regarding terms such as "organisation" and "LIR".
The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - Clarifies when the subsequent allocation policy applies - Fixing some typos
The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01
And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01/draft
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussing 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 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 send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 1 June 2018.
Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Disclaimer
This email is private and may be confidential and is intended for the recipient only. If misdirected please notify us by telephone and return and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this email or any information within it. We use reasonable endeavours to virus scan all emails leaving our organisation but no warranty is given that this email and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor email communication through our networks is reserved by us.
Hi all, This is a grammar details that doesn’t affect the policy proposal content. I’m fine either way, but of course, I’m not native English, and the way it is being used in the document right now, was the suggested NCC format. So, I will say I’m happy if they choose one way or another, for consistence with the rest of the policies in the region. Regards, Jordi De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand@gmail.com> Fecha: viernes, 4 de mayo de 2018, 10:01 Para: Ian Dickinson <Ian.Dickinson@tfmnetworks.com> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) If LIR is pronounced “Elle-Eye-Are” (which is how I pronounce it) then “an LIR” is correct. It would only be “a LIR” if you pronounce it “Lear”. http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/04/using-a-or-an-with-acronyms-and-ab... Scott On May 4, 2018, at 1:42 AM, Ian Dickinson <Ian.Dickinson@tfmnetworks.com> wrote: There are a number of occurrences of "an LIR" (and also "An LIR") throughout the document that should be changed to "a LIR". Presumably only s/Organisation/LIR/ was done. Other than this grammar nit, I am happy the text matches the goal and I support it. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 03 May 2018 16:08 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to clarify the wording used in ripe-699 regarding terms such as "organisation" and "LIR". The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - Clarifies when the subsequent allocation policy applies - Fixing some typos The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussing 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 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 send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 1 June 2018. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum Disclaimer This email is private and may be confidential and is intended for the recipient only. If misdirected please notify us by telephone and return and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this email or any information within it. We use reasonable endeavours to virus scan all emails leaving our organisation but no warranty is given that this email and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor email communication through our networks is reserved by us. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
I agree with Jordi, Even simplest changes takes too long at RIPE NCC (and other RIRs). Nikolay On 04.05.2018 18:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
Hi all,
This is a grammar details that doesn’t affect the policy proposal content. I’m fine either way, but of course, I’m not native English, and the way it is being used in the document right now, was the suggested NCC format.
So, I will say I’m happy if they choose one way or another, for consistence with the rest of the policies in the region.
Regards,
Jordi
On 5 May 2018, at 13:41, NOC Hostmaster <noc@ntx.ru> wrote:
Even simplest changes takes too long at RIPE NCC (and other RIRs).
??? If the problem is how the NCC implements some policy, surely we should fix that rather than change the policy? FWIW I'm not expressing an opinion either way on 2018-01.
On 5 May 2018, at 13:41, NOC Hostmaster <noc@ntx.ru> wrote:
Even simplest changes takes too long at RIPE NCC (and other RIRs).
??? If the problem is how the NCC implements some policy, surely we should fix that rather than change the policy? FWIW I'm not expressing an opinion either way on 2018-01.
Dear AP WG, On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 05:08:25PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Policy proposal 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now in the Review Phase. [..] We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 1 June 2018.
We could use a few more comments on this proposal. It is in review phase, so there was quite a bit of support in discussion phase, but what we've seen so far was mostly a discussion about "a LIR" or "an LIR" and not so much on the merits of the proposed change... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Dear colleges. I fully support the proposal because it has no negative consequences. It is very small and puts the current policy in the right order. If the new LIR can get the IPv4 network I don't see any reasons why new LIR can't get the IPv6 network. We must support the development of IPv6 but not create problems with IPv6. This proposal is like small fix on github. I don't see any reasons to not approve it. I think that "a LIR" or "an LIR" doesn't matter. BR, Alexey Galaev +7 985 3608004, http://vpsville.ru http://cloudville.ru ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt@ripe.net> To: "address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 6:08:25 PM Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to clarify the wording used in ripe-699 regarding terms such as "organisation" and "LIR". The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - Clarifies when the subsequent allocation policy applies - Fixing some typos The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussing 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 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 send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 1 June 2018. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
I strongly support this policy. Makes things clear and outcomes predictable (I even suspect implementation of the current policy to be occasionally/randomly "bent" towards something more in line with what this proposal aims) -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Dear AP WG, the review phase for 2018-01 has ended. There was less discussion in review phase than I had hoped for, but given that *no opposition* was voiced, and that there was quite a bit of support in discussion phase and also *no opposition*, I think this good enough. (I'm doing this alone, as my co-chair Erik is also co-author of this proposal and thus abstains on all procedural matters) So, I declare we have consensus, and move 2018-01 to Last Call. Marco will send the formal announcement for that in the next days. For reference, a list of people that voiced support (or something else) in the review phase is appended below. If you disagree with my interpretation of what has been said and the conclusion I have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair Review Phase for V2.0, starting 27 March 2018 Support: Ian Dickinson Alexey Galaev Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN Comments, Clarification: Ian Dickinson - should it be "an LIR" or "a LIR"? (Side discussion with Scott Leibrand, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ, Nikolay NOC Hostmaster, decided to stick to the current spelling as that's in line with existing policy documents) Nikolay NOC Hostmaster "Even simplest changes takes too long at RIPE NCC" (answered by Jim Reid, not expressing an opinion on 2018-01) Opposing voices: - -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (9)
-
Alexey Galaev
-
Gert Doering
-
Ian Dickinson
-
Jim Reid
-
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
-
Marco Schmidt
-
NOC Hostmaster
-
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
-
Scott Leibrand