RFC7020: The Internet Numbers Registry System
In August the IETF published RFC7020 "" The Internet Numbers Registry System" as a replacement for RFC2050. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020 A question came up at today's Address Council call today: - "Does any of the global or regional policies need review following this?" I assume not - but it could be good to have the wg participants thoughts on this too. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Hi, On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 02:58:44PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
In August the IETF published RFC7020 "" The Internet Numbers Registry System" as a replacement for RFC2050. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020
A question came up at today's Address Council call today: - "Does any of the global or regional policies need review following this?"
I assume not - but it could be good to have the wg participants thoughts on this too.
I find the question a bit strange, given that the IETF doesn't make local or global policies, and the RIRs' local communities' bottom-up processes are not really affected by documents published elsewhere... OTOH, there might be useful definitions in there ("IXP", "end site", etc.) where it might be useful to refer there instead of maintaing our own local definitions. OTOH, again, having fully self-contained and self-consistent local policy documents isn't bad either... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 02/10/2013 14:11, Gert Doering wrote:
OTOH, there might be useful definitions in there ("IXP", "end site", etc.) where it might be useful to refer there instead of maintaing our own local definitions. OTOH, again, having fully self-contained and self-consistent local policy documents isn't bad either...
RFC7020 looks ok to me - the evil level seems very low indeed. I'd be happy to suggest a vote of thanks to the IETF + the document authors for the work they put into the document, and for the RIPE community to welcome its publication. Nick
On 02.10.13 15:11, Gert Doering wrote:
I find the question a bit strange, given that the IETF doesn't make local or global policies, and the RIRs' local communities' bottom-up processes are not really affected by documents published elsewhere... It could be if local or global policies refer to RFC2050 - it should be replaced - carefully.
(a search on ripe.net for RFC 2050 gives 213 hits - Advanced search returns 21 hits in Policy and Draft and Current 9 in best common practice 2 in help documents. So I think at least some housekeeping is needed...) -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net> wrote:
In August the IETF published RFC7020 "" The Internet Numbers Registry System" as a replacement for RFC2050. http://tools.ietf.org/html/**rfc7020<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020>
A question came up at today's Address Council call today: - "Does any of the global or regional policies need review following this?"
I assume not - but it could be good to have the wg participants thoughts on this too.
I don't see how an informational RFC like this should affect policy. It specifically states that it proposes no changes, and that it is not in the standards track. -- Jan
On 10/2/2013 5:58 AM, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
In August the IETF published RFC7020 "" The Internet Numbers Registry System" as a replacement for RFC2050. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020
A question came up at today's Address Council call today: - "Does any of the global or regional policies need review following this?"
I assume not - but it could be good to have the wg participants thoughts on this too.
FYI, The ARIN region is currently working on draft policy 2013-4 as a result of RFC 2050 being moved to historical status. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_4.html Andrew
On 02.10.13 17:14, Andrew Dul wrote:
On 10/2/2013 5:58 AM, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
In August the IETF published RFC7020 "" The Internet Numbers Registry System" as a replacement for RFC2050. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020
A question came up at today's Address Council call today: - "Does any of the global or regional policies need review following this?"
I assume not - but it could be good to have the wg participants thoughts on this too.
FYI, The ARIN region is currently working on draft policy 2013-4 as a result of RFC 2050 being moved to historical status.
Interesting. Is the proposed Arin policy a regional policy or a proposed global policy? The name - RIR principles suggest the latter - otherwise it should have been ARIN Principles IMHO.
Andrew
Hans Petter -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
On 10/2/2013 9:15 AM, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
On 02.10.13 17:14, Andrew Dul wrote:
On 10/2/2013 5:58 AM, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
In August the IETF published RFC7020 "" The Internet Numbers Registry System" as a replacement for RFC2050. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020
A question came up at today's Address Council call today: - "Does any of the global or regional policies need review following this?"
I assume not - but it could be good to have the wg participants thoughts on this too.
FYI, The ARIN region is currently working on draft policy 2013-4 as a result of RFC 2050 being moved to historical status.
Interesting. Is the proposed Arin policy a regional policy or a proposed global policy?
The name - RIR principles suggest the latter - otherwise it should have been ARIN Principles IMHO.
The draft policy only applies to the ARIN region at this point as that is the only place it is being discussed. Not speaking for the authors of the policy but as a contributor, I believe it would be valuable for other RIRs to consider if their policies would benefit from adding principles to their regional policies. There has also been some talk on the ARIN list if a different version of the policy should be created as a global policy which would eventually be passed by the ICANN board via the NRO to apply to the IANA registry. Andrew
Andrew, Andrew Dul wrote: [...]
Not speaking for the authors of the policy but as a contributor, I believe it would be valuable for other RIRs to consider if their policies would benefit from adding principles to their regional policies. There has also been some talk on the ARIN list if a different version of the policy should be created as a global policy which would eventually be passed by the ICANN board via the NRO to apply to the IANA registry.
Keep up at the back :-) That is indeed what is in section 3.0 of ripe-592: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-592#Goals-Internet-Registry-System In fact, if you go back to ripe-136, from mid-1996, you'll find similar language there in section 2.2. Regards, Leo Vegoda
Hi, On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:28:52AM -0700, Andrew Dul wrote:
There has also been some talk on the ARIN list if a different version of the policy should be created as a global policy which would eventually be passed by the ICANN board via the NRO to apply to the IANA registry.
After the... interesting... experience of the last global policy proposal, which was nicely destroyed by a single registry's lawyer brigade, it would be quite interesting to see the outcome of this. It's *so* easy to void an immense amount of work in other regions by changing a few words here and there... "For a global policy, all *5* regions have to agree on the very same text" Gert Doering -- "no hats, but that won't help me hide" -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 02.10.13 17:14, Andrew Dul wrote:
On 10/2/2013 5:58 AM, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
In August the IETF published RFC7020 "" The Internet Numbers Registry System" as a replacement for RFC2050. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020
A question came up at today's Address Council call today: - "Does any of the global or regional policies need review following this?"
I assume not - but it could be good to have the wg participants thoughts on this too.
FYI, The ARIN region is currently working on draft policy 2013-4 as a result of RFC 2050 being moved to historical status.
LACNIC-2013-02 http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/politicas (The idea behind this specific proposal is not to be a global, but regional - I have been told) In our policies I was pointed to ripe-592 which spells out the registry system goals in section 3.0 and RIPE policy has included similar text since the publication of ripe-136 in May 1996. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
It is a strange question as "This document provides information about the current Internet Numbers Registry System used in the distribution of globally unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system (AS) numbers. It also describes the processes used for further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System. This document does not propose any changes to the current operation of this system. " Dima On Oct 2, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
In August the IETF published RFC7020 "" The Internet Numbers Registry System" as a replacement for RFC2050. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020
A question came up at today's Address Council call today: - "Does any of the global or regional policies need review following this?"
I assume not - but it could be good to have the wg participants thoughts on this too.
-- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
participants (7)
-
Andrew Dul -
Dmitry Burkov -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Leo Vegoda -
Nick Hilliard