wow Nick, thanks for the diff. I have not had time to carefully ready all the documents, so, this reply is only to your comments. I'll send an other e-mail If I find anything else worth mentioning once I get the time to compare all the current policy documents to the new policy proposal. On 01/09/15 00:22, Nick Hilliard wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 first of all, a large thank-you for handling this policy aggregation. This will make things a lot easier for organisations to understand how RIPE transfer policy works. Although policy reworking like this is completely thankless, it's important to do. big thanks, Erik I've gone down through the new policy and compared it against the old. As expected, there is plenty of optimisation going on, but optimisation means changes and changes mean that we need to understand what's been changed.
Enumerating some of the changes:
"Resources are excluded from transfers when RIPE Policies mandate their return to the RIPE NCC.": this is completely new text. approve. I would like this to be clarified. I don't recall having any policies mandating a return of a resource to the RIPE NCC.
ipv6 transfer policy: added "Transfers must be reflected in the RIPE Database. Transfers can be on a permanent or non-permanent basis.". approve. +1
ipv6 transfer policy: removed "The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation size at the time of re-allocation". for the record, this is an interesting consequence of section 2.1, paragraph 3. I.e. no point in repeating policy that already exists. ok
asn transfer policy: added "scarce resources ... cannot be transferred by the resource holder within 24 months". I don't disagree with this, nor with the genericisation of this transfer restriction. I do not disagree with this change. I would, as Sacha said, prefer to discuss it in a separate policy proposal. all policies: the tightening of the policy text in section 2.1 concerning who's currently responsible for the resource ("the original resource holder ... policies are applied") is good.
asn + ipv6 policies: added statement that ripe policies apply for the duration of transfer and during the transfer process itself - to align with the ipv4 policy. This is good, but other RIRs may claim that their policies apply during the transfer process. Would it be worth discussing at a higher level whether there should be a global policy for which RIR policy applies during the transfer process? I also believe that as long as a resource is registered in a registry's db, that registry's policy must apply.
all policies: "Resources are excluded from transfers when RIPE Policies mandate their return to the RIPE NCC". Mmm. I'd be careful about inserting something like this. Can you explain the intention and the meaning of this clause? same as above.. I'd like this to be explained.
all policies: removed statement about publishing stats on non-approved transfers. Whoa, what's going on here? Not ok. IMHO, aggregated stats should still exist for non-approved transfers. Nick
regards, elvis