Draft Agenda for lir-wg at RIPE 24 - second draft
Dear working Group, as the first draft was made for the plenary presentation at RIPE 34 it has been out for a while at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r35-draftagenda.html Here is an updated second draft. Please approach me with additional items to the agenda. 1. Admin scribe, participant list, charter, mailinglists 2. Agenda 3. Meet the RIPE NCC hostmasters 4. RIPE 34 minutes actions 5. Reports from the Registries RIPE NCC APNIC ARIN ICANN Status of the Latin and AFRI NiCs 6. Report from the address council 7. The policy making process 8. Establish final selection procedure for the address council 9. Domain objects in the database 10. PGP authentication 11. WG management 12.. AOB Joint Lir-wg / IPv6 WG: B. Comments on the Provisional Assignment on Allocation of IPv6 addresses document (ipv6-wg & lir-wg) - Why is a dial-up link treated differently - should such users get a /48 or a /64 ?!? - Public or private addresses recommendation for point-to-point links - What constitutes 80% utilization ?!? (I am looking for a volunteer from the RIPE NCC for an introduction on the issues - other speakers are also welcome to volunteer)
One of my colleagues recently received the following in reply to a 141: "If your customer still uses HTTP/1.0, we need a confirmation that he will return the addresses whenever a new policy set by the the LIR-working group requires so." Now this is often discussed, I know. The rightness of using HTTP/1.1 cannot be doubted. However this wording is awful, because it sounds like the RIPE NCC is dictating. In fact in this instance I was asked about the legal possibilities of what they saw as a "restraint of trade". Clearly, if clients respond like that, a better wording is required. Is the NCC considering it? Or should this list aim to standardise it? Regards, Joshua -- Joshua Goodall IP Systems Development Team Leader Tel: +31 20 711 3200 SpeedPort, Global Network Mob: +31 6 2859 3949 Infrastructure for the Internet Revolution http://www.speedport.net/
Dear Joshua, Indeed we are reworking our drafts at the moment in order to find a better way of addressing this issue. This one in particular. I agree with you that we need to find a better way of wording this. However, this particular issue has been thoroughly discussed on this maillist and the RIPE NCC does not intend to change any policies without consensus within the community. I sent a mail out earlier this year to the lir-wg, stating that we would bring this feedback to the other RIRs and also gather their input. We did attend the APRICOT meeting last week where this issue was further discussed with representatives from all three RIRs present. We will shortly bring these conclusion to the LIR working group in order to move forward and reach a decision. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Registration Service Manager RIPE NCC Joshua Goodall <joshua@ip.versatel.net> writes: * * One of my colleagues recently received the following in reply to a 141: * * "If your customer still uses HTTP/1.0, we need a confirmation that he will * return the addresses whenever a new policy set by the the LIR-working * group requires so." * * Now this is often discussed, I know. The rightness of using HTTP/1.1 * cannot be doubted. * * However this wording is awful, because it sounds like the RIPE NCC is * dictating. In fact in this instance I was asked about the legal * possibilities of what they saw as a "restraint of trade". * * Clearly, if clients respond like that, a better wording is required. Is * the NCC considering it? Or should this list aim to standardise it? * * Regards, * * Joshua * * -- * Joshua Goodall * IP Systems Development Team Leader Tel: +31 20 711 3200 * SpeedPort, Global Network Mob: +31 6 2859 3949 * Infrastructure for the Internet Revolution http://www.speedport.net/ * *
participants (3)
-
Hans Petter Holen -
Joshua Goodall -
Nurani Nimpuno