- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC website becoming HTTPS-only
by Paul Civati 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

(cc members-discuss) Mihnea-Costin Grigore <mgrigore(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > We plan to make the www.ripe.net website available over HTTPS only as > of 5 February 2015. We believe this change will provide a more secure, > efficient website for our users. > > The www.ripe.net website has been available over HTTPS for some time > already, and we are now making it HTTPS-only for two reasons: to improve > the website's security, and because we plan to integrate RIPE NCC Access > (our single sign-on system) with www.ripe.net as part of our larger > website redesign project, which requires us to use HTTPS throughout the > site. Some observations spring to mind. 1. www.ripe.net is (as far as I can see - and I could be wrong - please correct me) primarily an information site, that is it provides publically available information to everyone/anyone. Therefore it does not largely transmit anything that needs to be secure and encrypted over SSL. 2. There have been far more security holes in https/TLS/SSL of recent than plain HTTP as far as I can tell. Therefore I would say that https is less secure unless you have sensitive information to transport. If my assertion (1) is correct then it would not seem beneficial to SSL proect www.ripe.net - indeed it may make it less secure. 3. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that SSO is a good plan, in this case separation of the two different entities (information ie. www.ripe.net and admin ie. LIR portal) seems like a good idea. Of course (3) may break the desire for SSO. Or this may not really matter and no-one may really care. :) Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com

7 6

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC website becoming HTTPS-only
by Sascha Luck [ml] 22 Jan '15

22 Jan '15

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:37:41PM +0100, Mihnea-Costin Grigore wrote: >We plan to make the www.ripe.net website available over HTTPS only as I like the idea, everyone should do it. Would the NCC consider publishing a report on any unreachability issues encountered, once it's been https-only for a bit? This would be useful info for anyone else considering this move. rgds, Sascha Luck

1 0

BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
by Shahin Gharghi 14 Jan '15

14 Jan '15

Hi When an LIR (new LIR or existed one) wants to have a new AS Number, RIPE NCC asks for their peers. At least two peer should be listed. I want to ask is it important for the RIPE NCC to know who are the peers? For example in Iran most of ISP's has only one peer and that is AS12880 or AS48159. And this company(TIC) won't confirm any request. Even if it is important for the RIPE NCC, they can search their database and ask the LIR contact of those LIR's to confirm the new peer's request. -- Shahin Gharghi

6 6

Re: [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
by Shahin Gharghi 12 Jan '15

12 Jan '15

If they won't check, why do they ask? On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Arjan van der Oest < arjan.vanderoest(a)voiceworks.com> wrote: > Just insert two peers that are available in Iran as upstream. They will > not actually check with those peers. > > -- > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Arjan van der Oest > Lead Mobile Engineer > > Voiceworks BV - Oplagestraat 1 - 1321 NK Almere > Mobile : +31 6 8686 0000 > Office : +31 36 7606656 > GPG key on http://keyserver.pgp.com/ > Key fingerprint = C58F 55CA C62A 5A49 15E0 2271 3481 6020 997E EE99 > > On 12 Jan 2015, at 13:48, Shahin Gharghi <ripe(a)rased.ir> wrote: > > Hi > > When an LIR (new LIR or existed one) wants to have a new AS Number, RIPE > NCC asks for their peers. At least two peer should be listed. > I want to ask is it important for the RIPE NCC to know who are the peers? > For example in Iran most of ISP's has only one peer and that is AS12880 or > AS48159. And this company(TIC) won't confirm any request. > Even if it is important for the RIPE NCC, they can search their database > and ask the LIR contact of those LIR's to confirm the new peer's request. > > -- > Shahin Gharghi > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
by Shahin Gharghi 12 Jan '15

12 Jan '15

Dominik thank you for your reply I've asked from the registration service department. But this is a problem for members. So we can discuss about it. cheers On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Dominik Nowacki <dominik(a)clouvider.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Shahin and welcome to the list, > > I don’t think it’s the question for the list members though. > > > > Get in touch with RIPE directly and ask them about their position: > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/contact > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/contact/contact-information > > > > With Kind Regards, > > Dominik Nowacki > > > > Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. > Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, > United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor > email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of > security and staff training. This message contains confidential information > and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you > are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy > this e-mail. Please notify abuse(a)clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately > by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this > e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be > secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, > destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited > nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors > or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of > e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy > version. > > > > *From:* members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On > Behalf Of *Shahin Gharghi > *Sent:* 12 January 2015 12:49 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number > > > > Hi > > > > When an LIR (new LIR or existed one) wants to have a new AS Number, RIPE > NCC asks for their peers. At least two peer should be listed. > > I want to ask is it important for the RIPE NCC to know who are the peers? > > For example in Iran most of ISP's has only one peer and that is AS12880 or > AS48159. And this company(TIC) won't confirm any request. > > Even if it is important for the RIPE NCC, they can search their database > and ask the LIR contact of those LIR's to confirm the new peer's request. > > > > -- > > Shahin Gharghi >

1 0

Executive Board Decisions on GM Voting
by Nigel Titley 23 Sep '14

23 Sep '14

Dear Colleagues, At the last RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting we discussed the issues that arose on the members-discuss mailing list regarding voting at the General Meeting (GM). These issues were summarised in my last mail to the list: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2014-July/001618.html The Board decided the following: A. Paper votes: There were some members who expressed concerns about electronic voting and would like to retain paper voting. While the Board believes that electronic voting is secure and stable, there is no compelling reason to remove paper voting at this time. Removing paper voting would also require a change to the Articles of Association. The Board has therefore decided to retain paper voting for the moment. B. Proxy voting: This method of voting is used less frequently, but some members still use it and have indicated they would prefer to pass their vote to someone more informed and who they trust. The fact that submitting a proxy form requires some effort, and that members must submit proxy forms at least two weeks before the GM, also reduces the likelihood that proxy votes will be widely used. Removing proxy voting would also require a change to the Articles of Association. The Board has therefore decided to retain proxy voting for the moment. C. Voting by acclamation: There was one suggestion to remove the possibility to vote by acclamation, or "show of hands". This option is not practically possible while there is electronic voting. However, removing the option would require a change to the Articles of Association. The Board has therefore decided not to remove this possibility from the Articles of Association but in practice this option will not be used. D. Extending the voting window: A number of members were in favour of extending the voting window. Electronic votes make up the majority of votes cast so the Board would like to do as much as possible to make it convenient for remote participants to cast their votes. The new system of registration through the LIR Portal means the registration period for electronic voting can also be extended. These changes present no administrative problems for the RIPE NCC and no change to the Articles of Association is required. The Board has therefore decided to extend registration for electronic voting until 18:00 on the day of the GM and extend the voting window until 09:00 on the Friday after the GM. The voting issues will be raised during the Report from the Executive Board at the General Meeting on 5 November. If you have any feedback on the voting at the GM, we hope you will let us know either at the GM itself or on this mailing list. I encourage all members to register for the GM through the LIR Portal. The new system allows you to register your attendance and voting preferences quickly and securely: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2014/gm-registration You can also see the discussion items and resolution to be voted on at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2014/agenda-gm-november-2… Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers
by Sander Steffann 02 Aug '14

02 Aug '14

Hi, First, move this discussion to NCC Services and Members-discuss... > lets see this article > > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.226.0… I think these are the most relevant parts. First the definitions: > “brokering services” means: > (i) the negotiation or arrangement of transactions for the purchase, sale or supply of goods and technology or of financial and technical services, including from a third country to any other third country; or > (ii) the selling or buying of goods and technology or of financial and technical services, including where they are located in third countries for their transfer to another third country. > “technical assistance” means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; technical assistance includes verbal forms of assistance.’. Then under article 2c: > 2. Annex III shall include key equipment and technology related to the creation, acquisition or development of infrastructure in the following sectors: > [...] > (b) telecommunications; > [...] and > 3. It shall be prohibited to: > (a) provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the key equipment and technology listed in Annex III, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of items listed in Annex III to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Crimea or Sevastopol or for use in Crimea or Sevastopol; and > (b) provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial asssistance related to the key equipment and technology listed in Annex III to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Crimea or Sevastopol or for use in Crimea or Sevastopol. As a networking person 'related to the provision [...] and use of items listed' does seem to include allocating number resources. I think we need some legal advice on this issue again... Cheers, Sander

4 6

Discussion summary on GM voting
by Nigel Titley 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, I would like to provide a summary of the discussion that took place here on voting at the General Meetings. The Executive Board will meet in September and discuss the issues that were raised on this mailing list. Please read the summary and if you have further comments to make, please do so on this mailing list or you can contact the Executive Board directly at<exec-board(a)ripe.net>. Kind Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman Summary of Discussion on GM Voting The initial mail to members-discuss requested that paper voting and proxy voting be removed as GM voting options. Nigel noted that other members had also requested that the time period for voting should be extended. Below is a breakdown of the discussion, outlining the points raised and the number of members in favour or against each proposal. Removing proxy votes For: 2 - This is easily replaced by electronic voting. Against: 1 - If I don’t have the time/knowledge to vote, a colleague can cast vote, allowing higher and more qualified participation. There was a request for the approximate number of votes cast by proxy. This has ranged from 11 to 19 since the introduction of electronic voting. Removing paper votes For: 6 - We are a technical community so this would be a natural move. - It is safer, faster, more eco-friendly and more convenient to vote electronically. - The GM Voting Report provides receipts and is verifiable. Against: 4 - There are issues relating to privacy and verifiable trust. - I understand how paper voting works but not electronic voting. - Paper voting is fun. - Voting receipts are a problem as they may facilitate "buying" of votes. There was a suggestion that people should automatically be registered for electronic voting and have to actively change that if they want to vote by paper ballot. Extending the time period for voting For: 6 - I need more time to cast my vote. - Suggestions of 24 hours up to four days. Most common suggestion was for 24 hours. There were three comments that the announcement of results should be made before the end of the RIPE Meeting. Nigel noted that making the announcement on Friday should be possible. Against: 0 Maintain practice of opening the voting window after discussion at the GM For: 6 - Discussions and presentations can change people’s minds. - Most people’s minds are made up anyway and the material is available online. - A vote without discussion is not very democratic. Against: 3 - The materials are available beforehand. - People have usually made up their mind beforehand anyway. Other Issues - Have a plaintext voting email instead of HTML only. - Remove voting by acclamation from Articles of Association.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
by Brandon Butterworth 26 Jun '14

26 Jun '14

> 25 Jun 2014 19:35 lists-ripe(a)c4inet.net > a vote without debate leaves a bad taste, be it in $parliament or at > the NCC AGM. Indeed, it is not far away from a jury delivering a > verdict before the evidence has been presented. Nobody said no debate. At the moment you can vote without listening to the debate, what difference does it make being allowed to do the same the day before? I think it's unreasonable to insist all voters have to sit through it before being allowed to vote at all but if it is necessary (need a vote on that :) then lock the doors, anyone who leaves loses their vote, allow only physical votes. brandon

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
by Nigel Titley 26 Jun '14

26 Jun '14

On 25/06/14 01:31, Rob Golding wrote: >> Well, this is one thing we were asking about. We currently allow a >> voting window of 16 hours (which is an improvement on the original 15 >> mins). How much time do you think would be reasonable? > I'd be happy with 2 days/48-hours > This would mean that the results wouldn't be available during the meeting (as we normally hold the members' meeting on Wednesday evening). If this isn't a problem then fine, but we've had indications that people like to know the result during the meeting. Nigel

6 8