Y.IPv6RefModel is out of scope for the ITU
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ipv6-wg wrote on 26/05/2018 12:16:
I already said this before, but "... in running such networks vis [via] the RIR policy making fora." is wrong. Stepping back a bit, what we're discussing here is not whether address assignment / allocation models should be dealt with by the RIRs or the IETF, but whether they are in scope for the ITU.
The answer to this is that all aspects of IP number resource management are resoundingly out of scope for the ITU. This includes all IP number resource assignment and allocation issues, all addressing models, and by direct implication, the SG20 work on the Y.IPv6RefModel work item. There needs to be a crystal clear statement from the RIR community that this entire exercise is wildly out of scope for the ITU, that SG20 needs to cease and desist from reaching into areas outside their competence, and that the Y.IPv6RefModel work item needs to end, immediately and permanently. Nick
Agree, however, I will say that such statement should be jointly made by the IETF and the RIRs communities (probably via the NRO). I've copied the NRO Executive-Secretary, in case they aren't following this thread, in order to seek their opinion on this. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fecha: sábado, 26 de mayo de 2018, 13:51 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: [ipv6-wg] Y.IPv6RefModel is out of scope for the ITU JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ipv6-wg wrote on 26/05/2018 12:16: > I already said this before, but "... in running such networks vis > [via] the RIR policy making fora." is wrong. Stepping back a bit, what we're discussing here is not whether address assignment / allocation models should be dealt with by the RIRs or the IETF, but whether they are in scope for the ITU. The answer to this is that all aspects of IP number resource management are resoundingly out of scope for the ITU. This includes all IP number resource assignment and allocation issues, all addressing models, and by direct implication, the SG20 work on the Y.IPv6RefModel work item. There needs to be a crystal clear statement from the RIR community that this entire exercise is wildly out of scope for the ITU, that SG20 needs to cease and desist from reaching into areas outside their competence, and that the Y.IPv6RefModel work item needs to end, immediately and permanently. Nick ********************************************** 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.
On 26 May 2018, at 12:58, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Agree, however, I will say that such statement should be jointly made by the IETF and the RIRs communities (probably via the NRO).
Jordi, it doesn’t work like that. SG20 asked this WG to comment and it can only consider the response we send back. Replies from uninvited strangers (from SG20’s perspective) can’t be introduced at SG20 meetings.
I've copied the NRO Executive-Secretary, in case they aren't following this thread, in order to seek their opinion on this.
You didn’t need to do that. We can trust the NCC staff -- Chris and Marco are doing an excellent job here -- to decide how and when to escalate matters in the most appropriate way. FYI the IETF is aware Y.IPv6RefModel exists. Though they’ve not seen it AFAIK. Except maybe via this list. The IAB recently sent a Liaison Statement to SG20 about Y.IPv6RefMode. SG20 prepared a reply at their meeting 2-3 weeks ago essentially saying “we’ll send you the document for comment once it’s ready”: ie when/if there’s a version which satisfactorily addresses all the points and concerns made by this WG. *Please* focus here on the document and ITU’s latest improper attempt to meddle in IP addressing: something that’s completely out of scope for them. Try not to add more moving parts or lengthen/entangle the communication paths by introducing additional actors. At the moment, responding to Y.IPv6RefModel is this WG’s responsibility alone: nobody else’s.
On 26 May 2018, at 12:51, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
There needs to be a crystal clear statement from the RIR community that this entire exercise is wildly out of scope for the ITU, that SG20 needs to cease and desist from reaching into areas outside their competence, and that the Y.IPv6RefModel work item needs to end, immediately and permanently.
ABSOLUTELY! Well said Nick. IMO this point is far more important than commenting on the contents of Y.IPv6RefModel. I hope the WG realises that. At this point however, that crystal clear statement should come from the WG because they’re the ones that SG20 has asked to comment on the document. If the RIR community wants to say something similar, they would probably use a different path: presumably a Liaison Statement from the NRO to ITU-T. As would ISOC, IETF/IAB, etc if they decided to comment on ITU mission creep into matters that are out of scope.
(a bit late to the party...) +1 to Jim +1 to Nick On 05/27/2018 03:01 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
On 26 May 2018, at 12:51, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
There needs to be a crystal clear statement from the RIR community that this entire exercise is wildly out of scope for the ITU, that SG20 needs to cease and desist from reaching into areas outside their competence, and that the Y.IPv6RefModel work item needs to end, immediately and permanently. ABSOLUTELY! Well said Nick.
IMO this point is far more important than commenting on the contents of Y.IPv6RefModel. I hope the WG realises that.
At this point however, that crystal clear statement should come from the WG because they’re the ones that SG20 has asked to comment on the document.
If the RIR community wants to say something similar, they would probably use a different path: presumably a Liaison Statement from the NRO to ITU-T. As would ISOC, IETF/IAB, etc if they decided to comment on ITU mission creep into matters that are out of scope.
On 26 May 2018, at 12:51, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ipv6-wg wrote on 26/05/2018 12:16:
I already said this before, but "... in running such networks vis [via] the RIR policy making fora." is wrong.
Jordi, it’s not wrong. But no matter. We can agree to disagree about that. Your comment here is unhelpful. Please focus on the actual document rather than rat-holing and shed painting about what others have said about it. Says he hypocritically for commenting on your comments about my comments. :-)
Stepping back a bit, what we're discussing here is not whether address assignment / allocation models should be dealt with by the RIRs or the IETF, but whether they are in scope for the ITU.
Indeed. This is the biggest issue BY FAR with Y.IPv6RefModel. Or should be, It would be a serious problem if this key concern got overlooked by the WG in its efforts to point out the many errors and defects in that document.
Hi,
Stepping back a bit, what we're discussing here is not whether address assignment / allocation models should be dealt with by the RIRs or the IETF, but whether they are in scope for the ITU.
Indeed. This is the biggest issue BY FAR with Y.IPv6RefModel. Or should be,
It would be a serious problem if this key concern got overlooked by the WG in its efforts to point out the many errors and defects in that document.
+1 We should help the ITU, where the help in this case comes down to: make them acknowledge that this work is already handled by existing organisations and groups, that the ITU does not have the experience and knowledge to improve on that, and that they should follow the lead of the established authorities in this area (= IP networking) instead of making things worse by inventing "standards" that have no relation to reality. Cheers, Sander
Fully agree with Sander and others I was shocked when I saw this document.... Cheers Silvia -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Sander Steffann Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. Mai 2018 14:56 An: Jim Reid Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Betreff: Re: [ipv6-wg] Y.IPv6RefModel is out of scope for the ITU Hi,
Stepping back a bit, what we're discussing here is not whether address assignment / allocation models should be dealt with by the RIRs or the IETF, but whether they are in scope for the ITU.
Indeed. This is the biggest issue BY FAR with Y.IPv6RefModel. Or should be,
It would be a serious problem if this key concern got overlooked by the WG in its efforts to point out the many errors and defects in that document.
+1 We should help the ITU, where the help in this case comes down to: make them acknowledge that this work is already handled by existing organisations and groups, that the ITU does not have the experience and knowledge to improve on that, and that they should follow the lead of the established authorities in this area (= IP networking) instead of making things worse by inventing "standards" that have no relation to reality. Cheers, Sander
participants (6)
-
Jim Reid -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Nick Hilliard -
Sander Steffann -
Silvia Hagen -
Yannis Nikolopoulos