RIPE NCC's response to ITU SG20 Liaison Statement
Dear colleagues, We would like to inform you that we have published our response to a Liaison Statement that we recently received on behalf of ITU Study Group 20, which is working on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications, including smart cities and communities. The incoming Liaison Statement as well as our response can be found on the RIPE NCC’s website: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/ripe-ncc-suppli... In case you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us via email, this mailing list or you can contact me or one of my colleagues during next week’s RIPE meeting, taking place in Madrid, Spain. Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC
A good response, thanks! Specifically:
While the liaison statement notes the Study Group's intention to cooperate closely with "the IETF, the IPv6 Forum, ISOC, ETSI and other relevant stakeholders and academic partners", we would suggest that such cooperation (in the context of IPv6 addressing) should be characterised by the Study Group's incorporation of policies or best practices developed in these other communities.
Patrik On 20 Oct 2016, at 11:01, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We would like to inform you that we have published our response to a Liaison Statement that we recently received on behalf of ITU Study Group 20, which is working on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications, including smart cities and communities.
The incoming Liaison Statement as well as our response can be found on the RIPE NCC’s website:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/ripe-ncc-suppli...
In case you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us via email, this mailing list or you can contact me or one of my colleagues during next week’s RIPE meeting, taking place in Madrid, Spain.
Regards,
Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC
All, I agree with Patrik, nicely written and I am glad the RIPE NCC is tracking such things. It is a pity that these issues apparently need to be re-visited constantly, but I appreciate that the RIPE NCC is willing to fight the same battles! Cheers, -- Shane At 2016-10-20 14:14:25 +0200 "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
A good response, thanks!
Specifically:
While the liaison statement notes the Study Group's intention to cooperate closely with "the IETF, the IPv6 Forum, ISOC, ETSI and other relevant stakeholders and academic partners", we would suggest that such cooperation (in the context of IPv6 addressing) should be characterised by the Study Group's incorporation of policies or best practices developed in these other communities.
Patrik
On 20 Oct 2016, at 11:01, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We would like to inform you that we have published our response to a Liaison Statement that we recently received on behalf of ITU Study Group 20, which is working on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications, including smart cities and communities.
The incoming Liaison Statement as well as our response can be found on the RIPE NCC’s website:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/ripe-ncc-suppli...
In case you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us via email, this mailing list or you can contact me or one of my colleagues during next week’s RIPE meeting, taking place in Madrid, Spain.
Regards,
Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC
Agreed Shane, on both fronts (+1 to the statement and +1 to the willingness to keep addressing similar (if not the same) issues by RIPE NCC). Best, -Michael On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
All,
I agree with Patrik, nicely written and I am glad the RIPE NCC is tracking such things. It is a pity that these issues apparently need to be re-visited constantly, but I appreciate that the RIPE NCC is willing to fight the same battles!
Cheers,
-- Shane
At 2016-10-20 14:14:25 +0200 "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
A good response, thanks!
Specifically:
While the liaison statement notes the Study Group's intention to cooperate closely with "the IETF, the IPv6 Forum, ISOC, ETSI and other relevant stakeholders and academic partners", we would suggest that such cooperation (in the context of IPv6 addressing) should be characterised by the Study Group's incorporation of policies or best practices developed in these other communities.
Patrik
On 20 Oct 2016, at 11:01, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We would like to inform you that we have published our response to a Liaison Statement that we recently received on behalf of ITU Study Group 20, which is working on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications, including smart cities and communities.
The incoming Liaison Statement as well as our response can be found on the RIPE NCC’s website:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/ripe-ncc- supplies-feedback-to-itu-study-group-on-internet-of-things
In case you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us via email, this mailing list or you can contact me or one of my
colleagues during next week’s RIPE meeting, taking place in Madrid, Spain. > > > > Regards, > > > > Marco Hogewoning > > -- > > External Relations - RIPE NCC > >
+1 the following section was pleasing to read: "However, the proposed Recommendations refer to specific operational matters, and we do not believe that in this instance an ITU Study Group is the appropriate venue for development and adoption of such standards. With particular reference to the proposed Recommendation on IPv6 subnet addressing, we note that an IPv6 address plan must adhere to the policies set by the respective RIR communities, meaning that any normative specifications on IPv6 addressing should be developed through the open RIR community forums." Thanks for sending this in and depending on the importance attached to the work of that group, it may be good to put in a statement at the NRO-EC level Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 20 Oct 2016 13:14, "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
A good response, thanks!
Specifically:
While the liaison statement notes the Study Group's intention to cooperate closely with "the IETF, the IPv6 Forum, ISOC, ETSI and other relevant stakeholders and academic partners", we would suggest that such cooperation (in the context of IPv6 addressing) should be characterised by the Study Group's incorporation of policies or best practices developed in these other communities.
Patrik
On 20 Oct 2016, at 11:01, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We would like to inform you that we have published our response to a Liaison Statement that we recently received on behalf of ITU Study Group 20, which is working on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications, including smart cities and communities.
The incoming Liaison Statement as well as our response can be found on the RIPE NCC’s website:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/ripe-ncc- supplies-feedback-to-itu-study-group-on-internet-of-things
In case you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us via email, this mailing list or you can contact me or one of my
colleagues during next week’s RIPE meeting, taking place in Madrid, Spain. > > Regards, > > Marco Hogewoning > -- > External Relations - RIPE NCC >
Thanks for highlighting that section Seun, it was one of the strongest in my view. Again, it's good to see this kind of statement from RIPE NCC. It feels great to have that kind of institutional support as well. -Michael On Oct 20, 2016 7:12 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 the following section was pleasing to read:
"However, the proposed Recommendations refer to specific operational matters, and we do not believe that in this instance an ITU Study Group is the appropriate venue for development and adoption of such standards. With particular reference to the proposed Recommendation on IPv6 subnet addressing, we note that an IPv6 address plan must adhere to the policies set by the respective RIR communities, meaning that any normative specifications on IPv6 addressing should be developed through the open RIR community forums."
Thanks for sending this in and depending on the importance attached to the work of that group, it may be good to put in a statement at the NRO-EC level
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 20 Oct 2016 13:14, "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
A good response, thanks!
Specifically:
While the liaison statement notes the Study Group's intention to cooperate closely with "the IETF, the IPv6 Forum, ISOC, ETSI and other relevant stakeholders and academic partners", we would suggest that such cooperation (in the context of IPv6 addressing) should be characterised by the Study Group's incorporation of policies or best practices developed in these other communities.
Patrik
On 20 Oct 2016, at 11:01, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We would like to inform you that we have published our response to a Liaison Statement that we recently received on behalf of ITU Study Group 20, which is working on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications, including smart cities and communities.
The incoming Liaison Statement as well as our response can be found on the RIPE NCC’s website:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments /ripe-ncc-supplies-feedback-to-itu-study-group-on-internet-of-things
In case you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us via email, this mailing list or you can contact me or one of my
colleagues during next week’s RIPE meeting, taking place in Madrid, Spain. > > Regards, > > Marco Hogewoning > -- > External Relations - RIPE NCC >
Hi Marco, On 20.10.2016 11:01, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
We would like to inform you that we have published our response to a Liaison Statement that we recently received on behalf of ITU Study Group 20, which is working on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications, including smart cities and communities.
The incoming Liaison Statement as well as our response can be found on the RIPE NCC’s website:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/ripe-ncc-suppli...
In case you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us via email, this mailing list or you can contact me or one of my colleagues during next week’s RIPE meeting, taking place in Madrid, Spain.
first of all, I wholeheartedly agree with what's being said here by paf, Shane and Michael: thanks for be on it. Furthermore, I'd like to know if that Liaison Statement came to the NCC out of the blue, or if rather there had been some informal exchange with SG20 members and/or the chairs prior to the Statement. Thanks & best, -C.
On 20 Oct 2016, at 18:47, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:
Hi Marco,
On 20.10.2016 11:01, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
We would like to inform you that we have published our response to a Liaison Statement that we recently received on behalf of ITU Study Group 20, which is working on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications, including smart cities and communities.
The incoming Liaison Statement as well as our response can be found on the RIPE NCC’s website:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/ripe-ncc-suppli...
In case you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us via email, this mailing list or you can contact me or one of my colleagues during next week’s RIPE meeting, taking place in Madrid, Spain.
first of all, I wholeheartedly agree with what's being said here by paf, Shane and Michael: thanks for be on it.
Furthermore, I'd like to know if that Liaison Statement came to the NCC out of the blue, or if rather there had been some informal exchange with SG20 members and/or the chairs prior to the Statement.
Hey Carsten, Thank you for your continued support. As the response mentioned, we have attended the previous Study Group meetings and of course during those we also had informal exchanges with the rapporteurs, chairman and vice chairs of the group. The Liaison Statement did not come as a surprise as those were discussed at the last SG20 meeting. In that sense, the formal exchange of a Liaison Statement is a matter of ITU procedures, which they have to follow. As all RIRs received similar Liaisons, some coordination took place amongst the RIR staff and LACNIC and APNIC have also shared their responses with us. Of course as a member participating in the Study Group, we can also contribute directly and make interventions during the meetings, should we feel that is necessary. Regards, Marco
Hi Marco - On 21.10.2016 10:55, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
As the response mentioned, we have attended the previous Study Group meetings and of course during those we also had informal exchanges with the rapporteurs, chairman and vice chairs of the group.
that appears to have slipped through unread for some reason. My apologies.
The Liaison Statement did not come as a surprise as those were discussed at the last SG20 meeting. In that sense, the formal exchange of a Liaison Statement is a matter of ITU procedures, which they have to follow.
As all RIRs received similar Liaisons, some coordination took place amongst the RIR staff and LACNIC and APNIC have also shared their responses with us.
Of course as a member participating in the Study Group, we can also contribute directly and make interventions during the meetings, should we feel that is necessary.
Thanks for the clarification and the detailing. Have a good RIPE 73 week, all - best, -C.
participants (6)
-
Carsten Schiefner -
Marco Hogewoning -
Michael Oghia -
Patrik Fältström -
Seun Ojedeji -
Shane Kerr