Unique prefixes for all proposals
Hi all, I am aware that this list is not ideal for my concern; I simply defaulted to the least inappropriate list. One of my pet peeves is that the RIRs use clashing naming schemes for their proposals. If someone talks about proposal 2010-1 and does not provide context, there is an unnecessary burden on people figuring out if this the RIPE's or the ARIN's proposal they are talking about. The solution is simpe: A unique prefix. Possible suggestions for prefixes include: * ripe- The obvious choice. Short, precise, lower case. A potential problem is that once ripe documents reach a certain count, there might be confusion over the proposal ripe-2020-1 vs the document ripe-2010, i.e. that there is nothing specifying that we are talking about a proposal. * ripe-proposal- Unique, but long. * ripe-draft- Unique, not 100% correct with RIPE's naming scheme, but shorter. * ripe-prop- Unique, similar to how APNIC and AfriNIC handle things. * RIPE- Unique, short, somewhat ugly, does not specify that this is a proposal. Analogous to how LACNIC handles it. I am not sure if this warrants its own proposal which is why I am simply throwing the issue out in the open to see what the community at large thinks about this issue. Personally, I would tend towards "ripe-prop-". It's reasonably short but leaves room for expansion (ripe-doc-, etc) and unification. Any and all feedback welcome :) Richard
On 22 November 2010 14:10, Richard Hartmann <richih@richih.org> wrote:
The solution is simpe: A unique prefix.
Possible suggestions for prefixes include:
How about ripe-wg- Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999) J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
+1 On 22/11/2010 15:43, "James Blessing" <james.blessing@despres.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 November 2010 14:10, Richard Hartmann <richih@richih.org> wrote:
The solution is simpe: A unique prefix.
Possible suggestions for prefixes include:
How about
ripe-wg-
Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999)
J
-- David Freedman Group Network Engineering david.freedman@uk.clara.net Tel +44 (0) 20 7685 8000 Claranet Group 21 Southampton Row London - WC1B 5HA - UK http://www.claranet.com Company Registration: 3152737 - Place of registration: England All the information contained within this electronic message from Claranet Ltd is covered by the disclaimer at http://www.claranet.co.uk/disclaimer
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 15:43, James Blessing <james.blessing@despres.co.uk> wrote:
Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999)
Sounds reasonable to me. And it's even shorter. Richard
Hi, On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 04:18:33PM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999) Sounds reasonable to me. And it's even shorter.
For us, it is :-9 - I'm not sure whether the routing-wg folks are going to like it... Regarding the specific proposal, I can certainly see why you'd want this, and if there is enough backing here, I'll bring it up among the WG chairs and the RIPE NCC to see what can be done about it. regards, Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
For us, it is :-9 - I'm not sure whether the routing-wg folks are going to like it...
That's OK, we'll punt any proposals somewhere shorter to type. Or maybe use an abbreviation, but I prefer the first solution. Sounds like a good idea. Has it been discussed in any other regions too? All the best, Rob
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 17:14, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. Has it been discussed in any other regions too?
No. I posted on this list first, Gert will take it from here if enough people think it's a good idea. I don't think anyone is sure if I need to write a proper proposal or if things will be done via an administrative path (if it's done at all), at the moment. Richard
Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 17:14, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. Has it been discussed in any other regions too?
I like the idea in general and the proposal with ripe-<wg-code> in particular.
No. I posted on this list first, Gert will take it from here if enough people think it's a good idea.
I do.
I don't think anyone is sure if I need to write a proper proposal or if things will be done via an administrative path (if it's done at all), at the moment.
My feeling is that we don't need any full-blown formal proposal as there is no impact on the management of resources. I consider it a purely logistical issue :-)
Richard
Thanks for bringing it up! Wilfried.
Hi all, +1 Cheers, Ray On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:13:19 +0000 From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at> To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Unique prefixes for all proposals
Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 17:14, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. Has it been discussed in any other regions too?
I like the idea in general and the proposal with ripe-<wg-code> in particular.
No. I posted on this list first, Gert will take it from here if enough people think it's a good idea.
I do.
I don't think anyone is sure if I need to write a proper proposal or if things will be done via an administrative path (if it's done at all), at the moment.
My feeling is that we don't need any full-blown formal proposal as there is no impact on the management of resources. I consider it a purely logistical issue :-)
Richard
Thanks for bringing it up! Wilfried.
-- ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Senior System Specialist Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A raymond.jetten@elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 16:25, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
For us, it is :-9 - I'm not sure whether the routing-wg folks are going to like it...
I would argue that the specific WGs would have the final say on anything relating to them (if we end up using WG-specific prefixes), anyway. For example, ripe-rt- would work nicely.
Regarding the specific proposal, I can certainly see why you'd want this, and if there is enough backing here, I'll bring it up among the WG chairs and the RIPE NCC to see what can be done about it.
Thanks. Would/Should I write a proper proposal for that or would you just take it up directly? Richard PS: Yes, the RIPE is using RT for tickets, but I doubt they would want that namespace for RT.
Hi, On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
Thanks. Would/Should I write a proper proposal for that or would you just take it up directly?
Since this is more operational than "formal policy", I'll discuss it first, and then see what comes out of this. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:43:54PM +0000, James Blessing wrote:
How about
ripe-wg-
Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999)
+1 -- Yorkshire Water has been deluged by a flood of complaints following its poor handling of the drought (BBC news)
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:43:54PM +0000, James Blessing wrote:
How about
ripe-wg-
Where WG is replaced with the initial WG short code (so WG in this list would be ap and the final ref would look like ripe-ap-2010-9999)
Where is the added value of encoding a WG in the identifier? The PDP is cross-WG anyway so why introduce semantics in the proposal ID? Especially in the light of proposals touching multiple WG. I would suggest the prefix $RIR-PDP-$year-$number, e.g. RIPE-PDP-2010-4711 PDP for Policy Development Process, a term universally used by all RIRs. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On 24 Nov 2010, at 01:12, Daniel Roesen wrote:
I would suggest the prefix $RIR-PDP-$year-$number, e.g. RIPE- PDP-2010-4711
PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals. I'll bet you're one of these people who says "PIN number" or "IP protocol". :-)
On 24 nov 2010, at 02:31, Jim Reid wrote:
On 24 Nov 2010, at 01:12, Daniel Roesen wrote:
I would suggest the prefix $RIR-PDP-$year-$number, e.g. RIPE-PDP-2010-4711
PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals.
I'll bet you're one of these people who says "PIN number" or "IP protocol". :-)
You probably want to keep out of the document namespace which is RIPE-<number> already, so putting something in between would be nice. MarcoH
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:31, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals.
To be fair, the prefix scheme might be adapted to other uses as well. For example, it might make sense to use ripe-doc- for documents, at some point. Also, as pointed out in my initial email, ripe-nnnn is used for documents. ripe-nnnn and ripe-nnnn-nn are way too similar for humans to parse correctly at all times and they don't sort nicely, either. Richard
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:19:24AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals.
To be fair, the prefix scheme might be adapted to other uses as well. For example, it might make sense to use ripe-doc- for documents, at some point.
That was indeed one of the reasons for my suggestion. Clearly separate namespace, adaptable to other documents/objects as well. I should probably have explained that explicitly. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Since policy proposals are transient and RIPE documents are permanent, I would strongly urge to stay away from any attempt to rename or renumber RIPE documents. RFCs don't get renamed or renumbered either, and for very good reason. Remco
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Roesen Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:57 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:19:24AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
PDP is redundant since your suggested prefix applies to policy proposals.
To be fair, the prefix scheme might be adapted to other uses as well. For example, it might make sense to use ripe-doc- for documents, at some point.
That was indeed one of the reasons for my suggestion. Clearly separate namespace, adaptable to other documents/objects as well. I should probably have explained that explicitly.
Best regards, Daniel
-- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
I couldn't agree more. Joao On 24 Nov 2010, at 14:15, Remco Van Mook wrote:
Since policy proposals are transient and RIPE documents are permanent, I would strongly urge to stay away from any attempt to rename or renumber RIPE documents. RFCs don't get renamed or renumbered either, and for very good reason.
Remco
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 14:15, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook@eu.equinix.com> wrote:
Since policy proposals are transient and RIPE documents are permanent, I would strongly urge to stay away from any attempt to rename or renumber RIPE documents. RFCs don't get renamed or renumbered either, and for very good reason.
Renumbering is out of the question for obvious reasons. _If_ the naming scheme for documents were to be changed, it would need to happen in a fully backwards compatible way. For example, an existing ripe-1234 would still be ripe-1234, but ripe-doc-1234 could be used as a "soft link" to it. For the _new_ document ripe-doc-2345 might be used as the sole name from the beginning. But again, this is not part of my initial proposal. I went with a simple and, hopefully, uncontroversial proposal first. If and when other naming schemes should be evaluated as well will need to be determined later. Unless there is a general consensus that we should do it all at once. In which case I would not be opposed to discussing this, either. Richard
I'm more than happy to support your idea for the naming convention of policy proposals. I'll stick to my point of the actual documents however - history does not soft-link. Especially when people are expected to comply (which is the main reason for both protocol and policy to begin with) it's crucial to have a single name attached to it. Eternal confusion arises when you don't. Remco
-----Original Message----- From: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist@gmail.com] Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 15:37 To: Remco Van Mook Cc: Daniel Roesen; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 14:15, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook@eu.equinix.com> wrote:
Since policy proposals are transient and RIPE documents are permanent, I would strongly urge to stay away from any attempt to rename or renumber RIPE documents. RFCs don't get renamed or renumbered either, and for very good reason.
Renumbering is out of the question for obvious reasons.
_If_ the naming scheme for documents were to be changed, it would need to happen in a fully backwards compatible way. For example, an existing ripe- 1234 would still be ripe-1234, but ripe-doc-1234 could be used as a "soft link" to it. For the _new_ document ripe-doc-2345 might be used as the sole name from the beginning.
But again, this is not part of my initial proposal. I went with a simple and, hopefully, uncontroversial proposal first. If and when other naming schemes should be evaluated as well will need to be determined later. Unless there is a general consensus that we should do it all at once. In which case I would not be opposed to discussing this, either.
Richard
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 17:01, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook@eu.equinix.com> wrote:
I'm more than happy to support your idea for the naming convention of policy proposals.
Thanks :)
I'll stick to my point of the actual documents however - history does not soft-link. Especially when people are expected to comply (which is the main reason for both protocol and policy to begin with) it's crucial to have a single name attached to it. Eternal confusion arises when you don't.
Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe-doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential confusion, anyway. But again, I don't think there would be any confusion. RIchard
Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential confusion, anyway.
The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe-<foo> and ripe-doc-<bar> documents. Which one replaces which other one? So again, please don't. Remco This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
On 24 nov 2010, at 20:38, Remco Van Mook wrote:
Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential confusion, anyway.
The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe-<foo> and ripe-doc-<bar> documents. Which one replaces which other one?
So again, please don't.
+1 MarcoH (as a private citizen)
On 24.11.10 22:38, Remco Van Mook wrote:
Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential confusion, anyway. The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe-<foo> and ripe-doc-<bar> documents. Which one replaces which other one?
So again, please don't. Agreed, as don't see any real needs and only future problems.
Dmitry
Remco
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
On 24 Nov 2010, at 20:51, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
On 24.11.10 22:38, Remco Van Mook wrote:
Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential confusion, anyway. The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe-<foo> and ripe-doc-<bar> documents. Which one replaces which other one?
So again, please don't. Agreed, as don't see any real needs and only future problems.
+1 Joao
Hi, been there, done that :-) When RIPE started, we invented an elaborate series of documents with a 'proper' naming scheme. Trust a physicist (me) and a computer scientist (Daniel) to come up with a scientifically correct solution. This lasted for less then two years, after which we went to the current scheme. It took me only a week or so to go through all the archives and rename documents, and update references. As they say, l'histoire se repete toujours :-) Rob On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
On 24.11.10 22:38, Remco Van Mook wrote:
Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential confusion, anyway. The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe-<foo> and ripe-doc-<bar> documents. Which one replaces which other one?
So again, please don't. Agreed, as don't see any real needs and only future problems.
Dmitry
Remco
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 20:38, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook@eu.equinix.com> wrote:
The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe-<foo> and ripe-doc-<bar> documents. Which one replaces which other one?
I think that is wildly exaggerated, both in terms of time and level of confusion. Yet, it _is_ a valid concern.
So again, please don't.
As of right now, this is not really an issue, anyway. _If_ this is revisited at some point, I am certain that there will be a long & thorough discussion about all possible implications. Richard
On 24 Nov 2010, at 19:38, Remco Van Mook wrote:
The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between ripe-<foo> and ripe-doc-<bar> documents. Which one replaces which other one?
So again, please don't.
+1 a
Returning to the policy proposal numbering... Could we also then use GLOBAL-PDP-YYYY-NN to maintain a constant number across all regions for global policy proposals? Or do I just need to learn to remember which is which? The text would still have to be agreed by each region individually, but it might make tracking easier. However, having to put all the changes for each RIR into a single document will probably mean changes to the process in each region to cope with that, and I'm very conscious that when we get to the point of spending too much time fiddling with the process itself, it is time to look at what bits of it we need at all. Rob
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:09, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
Could we also then use GLOBAL-PDP-YYYY-NN to maintain a constant number across all regions for global policy proposals? Or do I just need to learn to remember which is which?
"Global" is far from ideal, imo. It's not unique at all. rirs-pdp- ?
However, having to put all the changes for each RIR into a single document will probably mean changes to the process in each region to cope with that, and I'm very conscious that when we get to the point of spending too much time fiddling with the process itself, it is time to look at what bits of it we need at all.
A rirs-pdp-1234 could simply reference the individual local working copy with backrefs from said copies to the global one. An alternative about which I am unsure myself would be ripe-global-pdp-1234-56, arin-global-pdp-1234-56 etc pp. Far from ideal, but as we are brainstorming... Richard
"Global" is far from ideal, imo. It's not unique at all. rirs-pdp- ?
Sorry, brain failure, I'm not seeing why "GLOBAL-PDP" (or perhaps GLOBAL-POLICY) is not unique? I'm not saying this is a good idea either, just throwing it into the discussion...
A rirs-pdp-1234 could simply reference the individual local working copy with backrefs from said copies to the global one.
My kneejerk reaction to that would be "ewww." :-) I think I was intending to keep it all in one place rather than a morass of links, but perhaps I'm thinking about a separate problem, what you're suggesting is really just a web page with information on the status of global policy proposals. Perhaps the ASO or ICANN does that already... :-) Cheers, Rob
Rob Evans wrote: [...]
... I think I was intending to keep it all in one place rather than a morass of links, but perhaps I'm thinking about a separate problem, what you're suggesting is really just a web page with information on the status of global policy proposals. Perhaps the ASO or ICANN does that already... :-)
Yep. As soon as a policy is introduced in a region, with the intent to become a global policy, a sort of surveillance or early-warning process gets started. This is done in order to formally keep track of the proposal(s) and to collect documentation about the process in each region, and potential differences to the substance. It also serves to avoid surprises for ICANN's BoD :-) Collecting that stuff is currently done by ICANN Staff (with the help of the RIRs' officers supporting the regional PDP), in support of both the ASO and the BoD.
Cheers, Rob
I'll go back a short while, trying to come up with an idea how to make use of what is there already. Cheers, Wilfried (with AC hat on for a moment)
www.bikeshed.com Nick
Hi, On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:18:31PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
www.bikeshed.com
What he said :-) So - I can see there is support for "changing the identifiers to help people see where it's coming from", and I think we should leave the details to the nice folks at the RIPE NCC - I've brought it up there, and I'm sure it will be considered thoroughly and a proposal will come up that is a workable compromise of what has been said. So, let's rest this specific discussion here (... and if you feel you *need* to do some discussion now, we'd welcome some feedback on 2008-08...) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
So - I can see there is support for "changing the identifiers to help people see where it's coming from", and I think we should leave the details to the nice folks at the RIPE NCC - I've brought it up there, and I'm sure it will be considered thoroughly and a proposal will come up that is a workable compromise of what has been said. I don't think that a different naming scheme in document identifiers is a poor substitute for a decent lookup system. What people are actual asking for is a decent way to find RIPE (drafts-) documents. And that by various methods (keyword search, search by workgroup, policy type). One might be better of with something like the IETF <http://tools.ietf.org/html/> or the tools on <http://tools.ietf.org/html/> then a "trick to encode a look up scheme in an identifier". (Thnk DNS versus a Google search). jaap
So - I can see there is support for "changing the identifiers to help people see where it's coming from", and I think we should leave the details to the nice folks at the RIPE NCC - I've brought it up there, and I'm sure it will be considered thoroughly and a proposal will come up that is a workable compromise of what has been said. Oops, typo coming up. It should of course be "I DO think that .. I don't think that a different naming scheme in document identifiers is a poor substitute for a decent lookup system. What people are actual asking for is a decent way to find RIPE (drafts-) documents. And that by various methods (keyword search, search by workgroup, policy type). One might be better of with something like the IETF <http://tools.ietf.org/html/> or the tools on <http://tools.ietf.org/html/> then a "trick to encode a look up scheme in an identifier". (Thnk DNS versus a Google search). jaap
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 13:59, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
What people are actual asking for is a decent way to find RIPE (drafts-) documents.
As the person who proposed this, I have to disagree. What I was asking about was a way to know if "proposal 1234-56" refers to a proposal within the RIPE or the ARIN community. That being said,...
And that by various methods (keyword search, search by workgroup, policy type). One might be better of with something like the IETF <http://tools.ietf.org/html/> or the tools on <http://tools.ietf.org/html/> then a "trick to encode a look up scheme in an identifier". (Thnk DNS versus a Google search).
...appending yet another integer to mark versions is A Good Thing. Though I, personally, would simply set up gitweb or similar and dump everything in there. IETF's datatracker is OK-ish, but leaves a lot to be desired. Plus, keeping everything in a VCS allows everyone to read, track, compare and revisit history with a myriad of tools of their own choice, at a place of their choice, with the interface of their choice instead of forcing them to be online and to use a website. Richard PS: Thanks to Nick Hiliard for his mail.
On 24 Nov 2010, at 10:19, Richard Hartmann wrote:
For example, it might make sense to use ripe-doc- for documents, at some point.
This loses if we use ripe-XX where XX is the name of a Working Group and later on the Documentation Working Group is created.
Dear Richard, address-policy-wg, This seems straight forward and reasonable. I'd like to express my support for this change. Furthermore, my preference is for the ripe-<WG short code> prefix proposed by James. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 11/22/2010 03:10 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
The solution is simpe: A unique prefix.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 17:45, David Monosov <davidm@futureinquestion.net> wrote:
This seems straight forward and reasonable. I'd like to express my support for this change. Furthermore, my preference is for the ripe-<WG short code> prefix proposed by James.
What about ripe-<wgabbrevationcauseelsetheroutingwgwillkillme> ? Richard
we don't kill anyone, we just null-route them ;) Whatever makes life easier, I will be happy with Joao On 22 Nov 2010, at 18:13, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 17:45, David Monosov <davidm@futureinquestion.net> wrote:
This seems straight forward and reasonable. I'd like to express my support for this change. Furthermore, my preference is for the ripe-<WG short code> prefix proposed by James.
What about ripe-<wgabbrevationcauseelsetheroutingwgwillkillme> ?
Richard
+1 At 22-11-2010 17:45, David Monosov wrote:
Dear Richard, address-policy-wg,
This seems straight forward and reasonable. I'd like to express my support for this change. Furthermore, my preference is for the ripe-<WG short code> prefix proposed by James.
-- Respectfully yours,
David Monosov
On 11/22/2010 03:10 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
The solution is simpe: A unique prefix.
On 22 Nov 2010, at 16:45, David Monosov wrote:
This seems straight forward and reasonable. I'd like to express my support for this change. Furthermore, my preference is for the ripe-<WG short code> prefix proposed by James.
Will the NCC have to update internal software systems to support this new nomenclature, and if so will it be complex or expensive to implement ? Andy
I agree that it would be really great to have a unique naming mechanism for policy proposals across regions. I'd also like to suggest that somehow Global Policies have some consistent naming mechanism across regions, so that they stand out a bit and folks can follow the conversation across regions. Maybe instead of RIR- it could be NRO- Global Policies being the ones enacted across all RIR's and spell out the actions between RIR's and IANA. For example, "Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion" --Heather On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Richard Hartmann <richih@richih.org> wrote:
Hi all,
I am aware that this list is not ideal for my concern; I simply defaulted to the least inappropriate list.
One of my pet peeves is that the RIRs use clashing naming schemes for their proposals. If someone talks about proposal 2010-1 and does not provide context, there is an unnecessary burden on people figuring out if this the RIPE's or the ARIN's proposal they are talking about.
The solution is simpe: A unique prefix.
Possible suggestions for prefixes include:
* ripe- The obvious choice. Short, precise, lower case. A potential problem is that once ripe documents reach a certain count, there might be confusion over the proposal ripe-2020-1 vs the document ripe-2010, i.e. that there is nothing specifying that we are talking about a proposal.
* ripe-proposal- Unique, but long.
* ripe-draft- Unique, not 100% correct with RIPE's naming scheme, but shorter.
* ripe-prop- Unique, similar to how APNIC and AfriNIC handle things.
* RIPE- Unique, short, somewhat ugly, does not specify that this is a proposal. Analogous to how LACNIC handles it.
I am not sure if this warrants its own proposal which is why I am simply throwing the issue out in the open to see what the community at large thinks about this issue.
Personally, I would tend towards "ripe-prop-". It's reasonably short but leaves room for expansion (ripe-doc-, etc) and unification.
Any and all feedback welcome :) Richard
participants (22)
-
Adam McGreggor -
Andy Davidson -
Daniel Roesen -
David Freedman -
David Monosov -
Dmitry Burkov -
Gert Doering -
Heather Schiller -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
James Blessing -
Jim Reid -
João Damas -
Marco Hogewoning -
Michiel Klaver -
Nick Hilliard -
Raymond Jetten -
Remco Van Mook -
Richard Hartmann -
Richard Hartmann -
Rob Blokzijl -
Rob Evans -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet