Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
        address-policy-wg@ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer
      Policies) (Jan Ingvoldstad)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:26:30 +0200
From: Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com>
To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE
        Resource Transfer Policies)
Message-ID:
        <CAEffzkzzpKA1aqUtUzESDJpLggLbOUdfMhaETmStDcRddPmUjg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:17 PM, James Blessing <
james.blessing@despres.co.uk> wrote:

> On 14 August 2015 at 10:54, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
>
> >     https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
>

Thanks for putting in the time and effort, Erik!

Couple of questions/comments...
>
> From 1.0
>
> Shouldn't the scope be explicit as to what is/isn't included
>

I agree that this would help.

>From 2.1
>
> "Transfers can be on a permanent or non-permanent basis."
>
> How is this going to be recorded and managed within the context of
> reflecting it being a non-permanent transfer?
>

Wouldn't that be up to the RIPE NCC?

>From 2.2
>
> "assigned by the RIPE NCC on a restricted basis (such as IPv4 or 16-bit
> ASNs)"
>
> Rather than "such as" this needs to be a definitive list of what is
> classed as a restricted resource
>

I concur, but I don't think it should be listed in the same document.

My first thought is that this list should be maintained by the RIPE NCC.

Keeping that list in a separate document means changing fewer documents
when policy changes, or reality reaches a pre-set limit set in policy.

That separate list should reference the policy documents enabling the
restrictions.

>From 3.1
>
> Again a list of conditions or references to policies that impose
> restrictions needed
>

I'm a bit confused both by the point and by your response to it, maybe I'm
just tired, but I think both could be clearer. :)

>From 4.0
>
> M&A process is mentioned, should there be other references to this?
> Especially as M&A (as I understand it) allows 2.2 to be overridden
>

"The document proposes to include the transfer restrictions to mergers and
acquisitions. This is done to make the policy more in line with the
intention of the transfer policy restrictions when proposed."

General
>
> - As this is about transfers should this also cover returning
> resources to ripe NCC so all types of transfers be included
>

I'm not sure that this would be useful, but 2015-04 could 1) include a
reference to the policy for that, and 2) make it even clearer that this is
a document for transfers between resource holders.

I don't think it's useful to consider the RIR a resource holder in this
context.

- broadly support the unification of transfer policy into a single
> document, just things bits are missing or muddy
>

Agreed, but the document is largely clarifying more than muddying, IMHO.
--
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150817/cf35e13e/attachment-0001.html>

End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 17
*************************************************