- ncc-services-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Proposal for easing keysigning at meetings
by Phil Pennock 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

A little hallway conversation led to a concensus that NCC-Services is the correct place to suggest this idea; it's a minimal-cost suggestion for aiding crypto key-signing via the RIPE conference registration. The main issue with exchanging crypto keys (eg PGP) is verifying that all the information has been copied correctly and spending the actual time to do it. If the online registration form has an optional field to supply a key fingerprint, then those who supply this will have their fingerprint listed in the attendee list and shown on their registration badge (optionally with keyid if not embedded in fingerprint). Then, if you're interested in verifying keys at the level of "I've talked to this person and someone has paid a few hundred euros for him to attend a conference in his name" or greater trust, then you can glance over the fingerprint on the badge, versus that on the list, and just tick the item. Then, later, working through the list you can just retrieve/sign/upload those keys which you've ticked. Benefits: * makes valid key-signing friendlier to the lazy and those without a surface to easily write on (or a PDA or ...) * so web of trust more likely to be established at RIPE meetings Disadvantages: * minimal change to registration form, slightly longer printouts * it's not _entirely_ free, but it's once-off minimal development and probably some text in the booklets explaining the system (and why people shouldn't just sign every key on the list) Does anyone think that this is a good idea, or a violently stupid idea? Should RIPE be doing this? (I actually proposed this at LISA a couple of years ago and the staff-member liked it and thought they'd try this at a USENIX Security conference, but I heard nothing more about it) -- Phil Pennock, Senior Systems Administrator, Demon Internet Netherlands NL Sales: +31 20 422 20 00 Thus Plc NL Support: 0800 33 6666 8

4 4

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal
by Dominic Spratley 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

Hi Christian, Sascha, You both made several points and I hope I can explain our thinking on them for you. We think these new forms represent a change in the way we provide services to LIRs so we've addressed this answer to the NCC Services WG list. We don't think they represent a change to the RIPE community's policy. This new set of forms is intended to reduce the burden on both the LIRs and the RIPE NCC. By reducing the administrative burden we hope to allow LIRs to access our services faster and improve the level of service we are able to offer. One of the ways we have attempted to reduce the burden on LIRs is by removing the Current Address Space Usage template in requests for IPv4 space. The template was fairly difficult for LIRs to complete. However, while the template has been replaced, the principle it represents - conservation - remains. That is why we ask whether the End Users has address space that can already meet the needs of this request. The situation with regard to address space that is being returned has not changed in these forms. We realise that many enterprises are not fully aware of the address space they use. To help LIR in these situations we have a Glimpse index of the database available. It can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/db/whois-free.html> The LIR remains responsible for ensuring that assignments are justified and that address space that should be returned is returned. This remains the same. Nonetheless, LIRs must still ensure that the assignments they make are justified. That means that they need to gather appropriate justification. We introduced a template asking about the equipment being used by the End User to help us understand requests faster. We often received requests for fairly large amounts of address space for vaguely described "network devices" or "LAN segments". The information provided was not sufficient for us to evaluate the request. As such the Hostmaster would need to ask the LIR for additional information. This would delay the request. We hope that the introduction of this new template will help us evaluate requests more quickly and improve the level of service we offer you. It is possible to put "N/A" in the equipment template fields but the Hostmaster might need that information to understand your request and ask you to supply it. This would delay things for you. We understand that it may not always be possible to include useful information in this template. However, we believe that the template will have a broadly positive effect on the level of service we can offer. You asked about the requirement for a network diagram to be supplied when requesting an IPv6 allocation. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the RIPE NCC has not yet made yet 250 IPv6 allocations. Our experience with IPv6 networks is limited and we need network operators to show us how they intend to use IPv6 address space in their networks. Secondly, the current IPv6 policy does not allow stockpiling of IPv6 address space. One way of distinguishing a genuine request from one that is intended for stockpiling reasons is to request a diagram showing how the address space will be used. It doesn't have to be a a fancy diagram. It's also fine to fax a hand-drawn diagram instead of sending one by e-mail. When we have more experience with IPv6 I expect we will make the diagram optional. Finally, we agree with you that many LIRs are not aware of the difference between PA and PI address space. This is unfortunate and has several roots: many LIRs have a large number of staff that change regularly. Also, many people find the difference between PA and PI rather arcane and difficult to understand. We try to address the former issue through LIR Training Courses and by making policy documents clearer to read. We've made updates to all the RIPE community's policy documents over the last few months. The IPv4 policy has been updated and a draft of the revised text is available for review by the community, now. It can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv4-policies.html> We have also taken a look at the wording used to distinguish between PA and PI. We would like to make the distinction more apparent to the untrained eye. We have published initial proposals on changes to the status attribute value names and are co-ordinating with APNIC on this work. We hope to make it easier for everyone to understand the status of address space. There are also a few advantages to the new forms that may not be apparent from the customer perspective but remain very important. Because the syntax-checking software at the RIPE NCC has been replaced the forms can be changed and updated more easily in the future. This means we can be more responsive to your needs than in the past. Also, providing services via the LIR Portal will let us improve the request process to make it easier and faster in the future. Thank you for your insights into these new forms. We are keen to get reactions from LIRs so that we can continue to improve and update them and the services we provide - both e-mail and web versions. regards, Dominic Spratley, Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

4 4

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
by azucena.hernandezperez＠telefonica.es 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

I support the view of Hans Petter regarding the additional identification of each organisation by a number making it a separate object in the database. I am in favor using the VAT number for organisations in EU countries and soon in the Eastern Europe Accessing countries and any other national registration number for those organisations established in non-EU countries. Azucena Hans Petter Holen <hpholen(a)tiscali.no> Enviado por: ncc-services-wg-admin(a)ripe.net 29/08/03 19:17 Para: Engin Gunduz <engin(a)ripe.net> cc: Hans Petter Holen <hpholen(a)tiscali.no>, DB-News <db-news(a)ripe.net>, <db-wg(a)ripe.net>, <ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal Clasificación: Uso Interno > I think that this is something too specific to have its own attribute. > "remarks:" attribute can be used for this I guess, just like it can > be used to point users to web pages etc. I dont agree: the point about the attribute would be to uniquely identify the organisation within a country. I am quite shure all countries within the EU has this concept of org-number/vat number or public registry number. The good thing is that it stays unique and lives trough name changes. Hans Petter ___________________________________________________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it. ___________________________________________________________________________

6 5

another attribute for organisation object
by Engin Gunduz 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

Dear colleagues, >From the feedback we've got, it looks like we want another attribute in the organisation object, in which users can put an "organisation number" or an "organisation-id". This can be a VAT number, or a number assigned by a certain Chamber of Commerce, or any kind of other ID. We would propose calling it "business-id:". We have thought of "org-id:" but the org-ID is the string we will have in "organisation:" attribute, so calling another attribute "org-id:" would be confusing. "national-id:" would have been another idea, but some IDs might not be a national one, like an ID assigned uniquely in the EU. So the proposal is to add business-id: [optional] [multiple] as a new attribute. It is optional, as an organisation might not have such an ID. It is multiple, because an organisation might have multiple such IDs. Thanks and best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks
by azucena.hernandezperez＠telefonica.es 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

On the issue of electronic voting, I add the following information: - "voting by correspondence" is legally identical that "voting by presence" in Spain in all kind of elections. For the time being the way of implementing the voting by correspondence is by traditional postal services but the change into electronic voting is under study. - the officially recognised European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) legally established in France implements the following voting procedures: a) for the approval of standards: ONLY online approval and therefore no proxies allowed. b) for decisions taken by the Board: voting during Board meetings and ALSO online voting when the decision can not be postponed till the next Board meeting. No proxies allowed. c) for decisions taken by the General Assembly (similar to the RIPE NCC AGM): voting by presence and by proxy. Voting by correspondence is legally considered in the Statutes but is has never been implemented. In addition to the previous methods all legally valid, ETSI uses very often what we call "indicative voting" which is similar to the "show of hands" in a meeting but electronically. It is a useful way of getting views from people that are normally silent in the email debates but have, nevertheless, a view when they face a specific question to which they must say "yes" or "no". Kind regards, Azucena Axel Pawlik <axel.pawlik(a)ripe.net> Enviado por: ncc-services-wg-admin(a)ripe.net 28/08/03 20:51 Para: Nigel Titley <nigel(a)titley.com>, ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net cc: Asunto: Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Clasificación: Uso Interno At 28/08/2003 16:31 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >Legally, what we do is for remote voters to allocate their proxy to the >chairman, who then "takes instructions" electronically to cast the vote >as required. I don't know whether this would work under Dutch law, and >it would also have some problems with the 2% proxy rule. Like I said before, the Dutch law currently does not recognise electronic voting for the purposes of the GM. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used for other purposes. We should however consider carefully where and why we would want to depart from the consensus principle. Having said that, we have been talking to our RIR collegues, to evaluate the electronic voting setup they are using. In the same vein, it would be interesting to get a look at the LINX setup. cheers, Axel ___________________________________________________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it. ___________________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ......
by Bovio＠aol.com 29 Aug '03

29 Aug '03

In a message dated 11/08/03 17:51:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net writes: > I have not stopped listening to concrete ideas about improving the RIPE > NCC. > > I am still here at the RIPE NCC working and listening. Of course the > bureaucratic developments you sneer at *do* happen to some degree. This > is inevitable and both you and I know it. The ability of individuals > like you and me to influence things immediately and directly is reduced. > Of course I personally I do not agree with all things the RIRs do and > more often I do not agree with *how* things are done. > > What seems to divide us is that I still work to improve the 'least of > all evils' structure and you sneer at it providing no alternative. > I would hope that more people will chose the former instead of the latter. > I also hope that people still see the relative mertis and the > differences in legitimacy that exist between the various organisations. > Sneering at the RIPE NCC without suggesting either alternatives or > improvements does not help. > I stand 100% with Daniel here. I can't speak for the others RIRs but I strongly believe the RIPE-NCC has made significant efforts in the recent past to listen to its membership, streamline procedures, and positively react to constructive criticism. There is more work to do, no doubt about it, but I can't see how flaming on mailing lists helps. Whomever has concrete ideas: I propose we move this discussion to the ncc-services-wg list/group, that was created exactly for this purpose. Daniele

23 91

Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks
by Bovio＠aol.com 28 Aug '03

28 Aug '03

In a message dated 20/08/03 17:34:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, kurtis(a)kurtis.pp.se writes: Personal attendance is a problem and is one of the issues that came out of the survey. From what I understand easier proxy voting is being worked on as well as on-line voting. Someone from RIPE NCC board or the RIPE NCC can probably give you more details. Folks, Indeed the board has been exploring how to allow as many members as possible to vote. I am afraid our legal counsel advised us that electronic voting is not legal in the Netherlands, and the current proxy mechanism is the only viable form. Cheers Daniele

7 7

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Enhancing members involvements in NCC-Services-WG and RIPE NCC General Meetings
by Axel Pawlik 28 Aug '03

28 Aug '03

Thank you Azucena for your ideas, I'll make sure that I pick them up next week. At 28/08/2003 18:01 +0200, azucena.hernandezperez(a)telefonica.es wrote: >Finally I have a question to make. Is this email list (ncc-services-wg) >only available for RIPE NCC members? I guess so but I am not sure. Please >confirm. No, this working group is open to the whole community, as many RIPE NCC services are not restricted to the membership. I'm sorry that we won't see you next week. kind regards, Axel

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal
by Christian Rasmussen 28 Aug '03

28 Aug '03

Hi Hans, The question is how complex an evaluation must be? The facts needed to evaluate a normal IP requests are simply the number of nodes needing a public IP address. In case one or more nodes needs more than 1 IP address then documentation is needed to explain why to exceed the normal rules, also in case the expected growth pr. year exceeds 100%. It would of course be easier to falsify the number of nodes than to falsify the documentation, but in case an end user intends to falsify information in order to get more IP addresses than justifyable, then I don't see any easy way to prevent this. But is there actually any other reasons for extensive documentation? Who benefits from the work all LIRs are obligated to perform by gathering this documentation? If normal requests did not need any documentation it would make it MUCH easier for all LIRs and of course for the customers who would not need to take the time to answer a lot of complex questions. If you as an end user only had to document your needs in case you were trying to get more IP addresses than normal justifyable, then it would probably also discourage a lot of the unserious requests. I would find it reasonable if larger requests still required some form of documentation, for example /24 and above. But it would of course still be very important for all LIRs to stress that the information received from the enduser must be correct. This proposal probably goes against one of the basic goals; conservation, but is it reasonable to spend so many ressources on conserving IP addresses when we actually don't have any immediate problem? Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Christian Rasmussen Hosting manager, jay.net a/s Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark Email: noc(a)jay.net Personal email: chr(a)corp.jay.net Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301 Produkter / Products: http://hosting.jay.net > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Hans Petter Holen > Sent: 29. august 2003 12:52 > To: Sascha Lenz > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Request Forms: > updated and available on LIR Portal > > > > BUT... information like the equipment being used or a network > > plan or so _must_ be optional information, not _required_ information. > > It can't be that a company is _required_ to make statements about > > their network and equipment if they want to have IP-Adresses! > > (and no, RIPE doesn't always qualify for receiving such information). > > This indeed an interesting point of view. It has been the practice for as > long as I can remember for the RIPE NCC to ask for documnetation for the > need for IP addresses. > > Is there strong support in the community to remove this cirteria ? > > If not, how should the LIR/RIR verify this criteria ? > > Best Regards, > > Hans Petter > >

1 0

Enhancing members involvements in NCC-Services-WG and RIPE NCC General Meetings
by azucena.hernandezperez＠telefonica.es 28 Aug '03

28 Aug '03

Dear colleagues , Some ideas have been circulating in various emails aiming for a bigger involvement of RIPE NCC members in both the NCC Services WG and the Annual General Meeting that, in my view, deserve consideration. I support the following ones: 1) Active Participation On-line: As far as I know the last RIPE meeting in Barcelona offered a webcast facility in one meeting room for the first time. I support the continuation of this service (in all meeting rooms) and its proper visibility to invite members unable to attend in person to do it remotely. I propose in addition some means to allow contributions to the open microphone sessions from remote attendants: either by phone (multiconference), by instant messaging and/or email. Proper consideration should be given to the remote contributions as much as those made "in person" in the meeting room. 2) Decision Making Tools On-line: RIPE NCC members interested on participating in the voting of items that affect them but unable for one or other reason to attend the Annual General Meetings should be given some more facilities than voting by proxy. Nowadays it is quite difficult to find 2 companies that have the same view on everything and therefore it's unlikely that a RIPE NCC member feels attracted to give its proxy to another one. If we believe on the services that we provide to our customers over Internet we can use them as well. Many international bodies have well established methods of approval on-line quite easy to implement. I propose that RIPE NCC sets up one in 2004. 3) More than one "Member type" for RIPE NCC: Some voices are expressing doubts about the cost/benefits regarding the RIPE NCC services that are not strictly related to IP registration. When my company joined RIPE NCC (3 years ago) these kind of services where already offered and we accepted them as a "bonus" on top of the pure registration services. The extra costs associated with these services impacts in our membership fee, that's true but, as it has not reached a painful threshold yet, we don't complain. I must say that we don't use the addtional services that much, but....... here there are just in case. It seems that the impact of the cost of the additional services is already painful for other RIPE NCC members. I must clearly say that if this trend of increasing the services provided reaches in the future a level that we consider unreasonable, we will complain as well. In the light of the previous words, I think that it is worth considering the possibility to set up 2 level of membership for RIPE NCC (in parallel to the present split by size) depending on the services required: - Basic RIPE NCC member: only registration services - Full RIPE NCC member: registration services + additional services Maintaining this "double membership" approach will cost some money for administrative tasks that will require consideration and cost/benefit analysis before moving further but I think that it is worth studying it. 4) Installing a fallback decision making procedure in addition to consensus for RIPE NCC WG: Consensus is the best decision making procedure and should be the preferred one in this new WG as much as it is the only one in the other WGs of RIPE. Having said that and considering that the decisions taken in this WG will probably have direct financial implications for the members, it is very likely that consensus is never achieved as the points of view differ. I think it is necessary to set up a fallback decision making procedure when consensus is not achieved in order to make progress. Voting rules as those applicable in the AGM may be considered. I would like to get these ideas debated in the next RIPE meeting. Regrettably I would not be able to be in Amsterdam as the RIPE meeting overlaps with another one that I have to attend in ETSI, but if the chairman of the NCC Services WG and/or the chairman of the AGM are so kind to input these ideas into the debates, I would be grateful. By the way, I still have some problems identifying where to accomodate these issues, whether in the NCC Services WG (for the services) or in the AGM (for the associated impact on budget and fees) as services and budget are always linked. Finally I have a question to make. Is this email list (ncc-services-wg) only available for RIPE NCC members? I guess so but I am not sure. Please confirm. Kind regards, Azucena ___________________________________________________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it. ___________________________________________________________________________

1 0