2008-08 New Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received, the draft document for the proposal described in 2008-08 was edited and published. The new impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 26 April 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 and the draft document at:
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 26 April 2011.
I read the document and think that it is a start good in its current form. Regards, Erik Bais
Dear colleagues,
Dear Colleagues,
Following the feedback received, the draft document for the proposal described in 2008-08 was edited and published.
The new impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 26 April 2011. I agree to passing this policy in this (or the previous version 3.0 of 2011-02-09) form.
My objection to excluding IPv6 has been taken care of (while I note that the undated NCC certification FAQ anyway tells "... certify their PA address allocations. This includes both IPv4 and IPv6 ...", and ripe-513 dated 2011-02-07 even in the title did know about PA space in IPv6 context). (my mail of Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:40 +0100) I'm not aware what concern or argument has been raised in order to include IPv4 "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED"; this inclusion seems to be opposite direction to quickly covering the most simple cases. I'd not be surprised if later on some complications with this hit. I'm NOT seeing this as a show stopper. Beyond these changes my arguments and concerns from the last revision (my mail from Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:40 +0100) essentially still apply - but I did NOT raise them as show stoppers then, and still regard them again as challenges for making required further progress. Looking forward to discuss required and planned activities at RIPE62. It is not easy to track what actually has changed, and a summary of changes actually would seem helpfull for discussing revised proposals; in particular I'm not sure about the 4 related documents. The only one I somewhat accidentally know that it has not changed is the CPS (that's still the one dated 2010-12-30 which is clearly different from the previous draft of 2010-11-01). Is ripe-517 (dated 2011-03-07) the same as the previously referenced draft? What about the two (undated!) terms and conditions documents? Regards, Ruediger Ruediger Volk Deutsche Telekom AG -- Internet Backbone Engineering E-Mail: rv@NIC.DTAG.DE
participants (3)
-
Emilio Madaio -
Erik Bais -
Ruediger Volk, Deutsche Telekom T-Com - TE141-P1