Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document Published (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
* Emilio Madaio
The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-03, "Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposa and the impact analysis at:
On this page, it would appear that the phrase «Within the RIPE NCC service region,» is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section 5.5.
and the draft document at:
However, that phrase is not found in the «new text» box on this page. That must be an omission? As a general feedback to the draft document page, not specific to 2012-03, I find it preferable if the «original text» and «new text» boxes are made as small as absolutely possible. If the paragraphs that aren't touched by the proposal are kept outside of those boxes, it is much easier to spot the actual changes made, than it is if you include the entire original and new section side-by-side (as is the case with 2012-03's draft document). Taking it one step further, it would be even better if those paragraphs that have only change by a small amount (i.e., aren't completely rewritten) have the actual changes highlighted, e.g., using strikethrough for deleted text, and coloured text for added text (such as the "Within the RIPE NCC service region" added by this proposal). The changes indicated in sections 6.0 and 6.3 at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03/draft are two examples I like. In any case, I support this policy proposal. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Tore Anderson < tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com> wrote:
As a general feedback to the draft document page, not specific to 2012-03, I find it preferable if the «original text» and «new text» boxes are made as small as absolutely possible. If the paragraphs that aren't touched by the proposal are kept outside of those boxes, it is much easier to spot the actual changes made, than it is if you include the entire original and new section side-by-side (as is the case with 2012-03's draft document).
Taking it one step further, it would be even better if those paragraphs that have only change by a small amount (i.e., aren't completely rewritten) have the actual changes highlighted, e.g., using strikethrough for deleted text, and coloured text for added text (such as the "Within the RIPE NCC service region" added by this proposal).
The changes indicated in sections 6.0 and 6.3 at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03/draft are two examples I like.
Yes, that is far more helpful than other proposals I have taken the time to read, and makes it far easier to consider whether this is something I need to be concerned about or not, and to which extent. Clear indications of changes is vital for the decision process. In some document difference tracking views, there will be coloured differences, red for removed text, green for added, yellow for modified, and so on, plus markers such as arrows or plus/minus signs to indicate the differences for those who for some reason cannot discern the colours. But we digress, my apologies for going forward with that.
In any case, I support this policy proposal.
After spending a bit more time than I felt was necessary for such small textual changes, I support it as well – I _think_ I know what the changes mean. -- Jan
I agree with this proposal. That being said... On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Tore Anderson < tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com> wrote:
As a general feedback to the draft document page, not specific to 2012-03, I find it preferable if the «original text» and «new text» boxes are made as small as absolutely possible.
[...] Agreed. I have tried to raise this general point with RIPE repeatedly in the past with very little success. Maybe we could garner enough support for this now :) The documents we are dealing with are almost exclusively plain text. This is the _perfect_ use case for version control systems. Not relying on one, both internally and externally, seems archaic and error-prone, to me. Released documents would be in master, allowing anyone to clone a full copy for their convenience while _knowing_ that it is a complete and up-to-date copy. PDPs would be maintained in branches, updates to a PDP would be done by means of commits in the respective branches. If a PDP is successful, it's merged back into master. If not, it either lives on as a stale branch or gets moved into a special archive directory before being merged back into master. This would: * Keep diffs at the bare minimum in size * Allow everyone to display changes in the way they like best * Provide a single, canonical, up-to-date reference of all valid documents * Allow anyone to use their favorite text handling tool to view documents and changes * Ensure complete logging of all changes * Introduce more accountability * Allow statistical and other analysis * Enable anyone to find out when a particular line last changed within seconds (think `git blame`) * Allow proposals to be sent to RIPE by means of a patch, reducing mistakes and overhead on all sides * Propel this process forward into the 90ies of the last century ;) Personally, I would like to use git as the tool for this job, but any reasonably recent VCS under a FLOSS license would be better than the status quo. I would also be glad to help RIPE implement such a system and migrate to it. Depending on the amount of feedback this receives, it may be prudent to move this discussion somewhere else. Richard
Dear Tore, all, Thank you for the notification. The draft policy text has been corrected. The execution of the PDP is always improving. If the RIPE community has input and ideas on the matter, like the ones recently expressed, please do not hesitate to email <pdo@ripe.net>. I'll gladly collect your feedback to take action upon it. Best Regards Emilio On 11/26/12 10:27 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Emilio Madaio
The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-03, "Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposa and the impact analysis at:
On this page, it would appear that the phrase «Within the RIPE NCC service region,» is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section 5.5.
and the draft document at:
However, that phrase is not found in the «new text» box on this page. That must be an omission?
As a general feedback to the draft document page, not specific to 2012-03, I find it preferable if the «original text» and «new text» boxes are made as small as absolutely possible. If the paragraphs that aren't touched by the proposal are kept outside of those boxes, it is much easier to spot the actual changes made, than it is if you include the entire original and new section side-by-side (as is the case with 2012-03's draft document).
Taking it one step further, it would be even better if those paragraphs that have only change by a small amount (i.e., aren't completely rewritten) have the actual changes highlighted, e.g., using strikethrough for deleted text, and coloured text for added text (such as the "Within the RIPE NCC service region" added by this proposal).
The changes indicated in sections 6.0 and 6.3 at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03/draft are two examples I like.
In any case, I support this policy proposal.
Best regards,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Thank you for the notification. The draft policy text has been corrected.
Could you adapt the side-by-side version [1] as well please? The actual diff is more or less trivial as seen in the attachment. It's needlessly complicated to see the actual difference at a glance.
I'll gladly collect your feedback to take action upon it.
How does this process work, exactly? As implied by my initial email, I already tried to help improve this process in the past? Is there a phase of public review of options or similar? Are issues that may block adoption of new techniques documented publicly? Other than suggesting a change, what can the community do to influence or help with this process? Thanks, Richard [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03/draft
Last month I brokered a sale of legacy ARIN space to a customer in the APNIC region using the Inter-RIR transfer policies in place in both regions. As we know, ARIN has the lion's share of IPv4 space, and this proposal would open the door to this source of address space for buyers in Europe. For sellers of RIPE space, this proposal provides another market or two to sell into. I believe a viable global transfer market in IPv4 addresses will assist in what appears to be a lengthy transition to IPv6 by making available underutilized address space and equalizing transition pressure around the world. I support the proposal. Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading.com -----Original Message----- From: Tore Anderson Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 4:27 PM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document Published(Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal) * Emilio Madaio
The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-03, "Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposa and the impact analysis at:
On this page, it would appear that the phrase «Within the RIPE NCC service region,» is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section 5.5.
and the draft document at:
However, that phrase is not found in the «new text» box on this page. That must be an omission? As a general feedback to the draft document page, not specific to 2012-03, I find it preferable if the «original text» and «new text» boxes are made as small as absolutely possible. If the paragraphs that aren't touched by the proposal are kept outside of those boxes, it is much easier to spot the actual changes made, than it is if you include the entire original and new section side-by-side (as is the case with 2012-03's draft document). Taking it one step further, it would be even better if those paragraphs that have only change by a small amount (i.e., aren't completely rewritten) have the actual changes highlighted, e.g., using strikethrough for deleted text, and coloured text for added text (such as the "Within the RIPE NCC service region" added by this proposal). The changes indicated in sections 6.0 and 6.3 at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03/draft are two examples I like. In any case, I support this policy proposal. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
* Mike Burns
Last month I brokered a sale of legacy ARIN space to a customer in the APNIC region using the Inter-RIR transfer policies in place in both regions. As we know, ARIN has the lion's share of IPv4 space, and this proposal would open the door to this source of address space for buyers in Europe. For sellers of RIPE space, this proposal provides another market or two to sell into. I believe a viable global transfer market in IPv4 addresses will assist in what appears to be a lengthy transition to IPv6 by making available underutilized address space and equalizing transition pressure around the world.
I support the proposal.
Mike, 2012-03 does not open for transfers from the other four regions. It applies exclusively to transfers taking place within the RIPE NCC service region. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
it would appear that the phrase «Within the RIPE NCC service region,» is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section 5.5.
I'm curious, why is this phrase being added? It does not seem to be discussed in the proposal summary or rationale. It also seems redundant, given that section 1.1 Scope in ripe-553 already says «this document describes the policies for the responsible management of globally unique IPv4 Internet address space in the RIPE NCC service region». It appears to me that the new paragraph being added («other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation»), is on it's own sufficient to accomplish 2012-03's stated goal of increasing the transfer-need-period to 24 month. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
participants (5)
-
Emilio Madaio -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Mike Burns -
Richard Hartmann -
Tore Anderson