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

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

Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks]
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 28 Aug '03

28 Aug '03

>To: ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net >From: Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)att.net.il> >Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Unneeded RIPE tasks >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:37:57 +0200 > >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ap2004.html > >Section 5: >"Incident Response Service (IRS) >Procedures will be set up to quickly provide RIPE NCC members, the Internet >community and the general public with authoritative data about unusual >events on the Internet, such as DDoS on the RIPE NCC." Well, according to this text artefact, tihs can be many different things. From - putting a headline to an activity which every responsible organisation should undertake (to have a security role and to reasonably interact with other instances of such roles), to - trying to do things which others are doing already. Questions: 1) can we have a more elaborate description from the NCC of what activities are expected to be performed under this headline? 2) is there any WG which could be polled or which has "adopted" this activity for definition and development (or is expected to do so)? Answers to these Qs would make it much easier for me to be in favor or against :-) Wilfried.

2 1

Updated agenda
by Kurt Erik Lindqvist 26 Aug '03

26 Aug '03

Slot 1, Tuesday 2/9 14.00-15.30 ********************************** 1. NCC Services WG charter (Kurtis) 2. RIPE NCC Services Direction - Service levels and activities 2004 3. RIPE NCC Information Services 4. Discussion & input time / Open Mic session Slot 2, Thursday 4/9 11.00-12.30 *********************************** 5. Presentation on X.509 and certificates (Dirk-Willem van Gulik) - Discussions around the X.509 implementation of the RIPE NCC and what other RIRs have done. 6. DNS Services - Modification Plans 7. Proposals from the community 8. Discussion & input time / Open Mic session

1 0

Proposed agenda
by Kurt Erik Lindqvist 25 Aug '03

25 Aug '03

I am sorry for sending this out so late. Agenda for the NCC-Services-WG looks as follow though: Slot 1, Tuesday 2/9 14.00-15.30 ********************************** 1. Presenation from the RIPE NCC General NCC Service update Update from the Training Services Update on Database Services Update on Registration Services Update on New Projects 2. NCC Services WG charter (Kurtis) Slot 2, Thursday 4/9 11.00-12.30 *********************************** 3. Presentation on X.509 and certificates (Dirk-Willem van Gulik) - Discussions around the X.509 implementation of the RIPE NCC and what other RIRs have done. 4. (Main) Discussion & input time / Open Mike session (Kurtis) 5. Proposals from the community (Kurtis) Best regards, - kurtis -

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks
by Bovio＠aol.com 25 Aug '03

25 Aug '03

In a message dated 22/08/03 18:44:28 W. Europe Daylight Time, woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at writes: I am working from the assumption that the bigger community (RIPE - which includes the rep.s of the Members!) develops and agrees to the activity plan, the NCC Members approve and agree to paid the bills, and the managing director is expected to make it happen, with whatever it takes. Operationally, I always saw the Board as a "background" group, which focuses on keeping the safety belts in good working condition, and to take care of formal responsibilities of the Association, as well as providing guidance to the MD. At the time when I was on the Board, we were very reluctant to interfere with the day-to-day management of the NCC. As this is a memory of the past, things might have changed. Probably something the Board should comment on. Wilfried, A quite good summary, and yes, this is still the case: the board does not interfere with the day to day management of the NCC. Daniele

1 0

Request Forms: updated and available on LIR Portal
by Dominic Spratley 25 Aug '03

25 Aug '03

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the release of new request forms for IPv4, IPv6 and AS requests. To make the request process easier, requests can be completed and submitted directly from the Tools section of the LIR Portal. This also provides real-time syntax checking and help. https://lirportal.ripe.net/ Text versions of the new forms and their supporting notes (with examples of completed requests) are available for download from the Document Store found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/internet-registries.html#request The new forms can be used immediately. The old forms can still be submitted during the three month transition period ending on 19 November, 2003. If you have any questions on the new forms, please contact <lir-help(a)ripe.net>. Suggestions for improvements to the new forms on the LIR Portal are welcome at <lirportal-feedback(a)ripe.net>. Improved and new functionality is planned for future versions. Kind regards, Dominic Spratley Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

4 5

Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 22 Aug '03

22 Aug '03

Kurtis, >To some extend this worries me a bit tough. We are actually taking >power away from the board members that are actually elected to >represent us. this is an interesting line of thought! I am working from the assumption that the bigger community (RIPE - which includes the rep.s of the Members!) develops and agrees to the activity plan, the NCC Members approve and agree to paid the bills, and the managing director is expected to make it happen, with whatever it takes. Operationally, I always saw the Board as a "background" group, which focuses on keeping the safety belts in good working condition, and to take care of formal responsibilities of the Association, as well as providing guidance to the MD. At the time when I was on the Board, we were very reluctant to interfere with the day-to-day management of the NCC. As this is a memory of the past, things might have changed. Probably something the Board should comment on. This would still be "representing us", but it might be slightly differnt from what you read into "represent us". It might indicate that you expect the Board to interfere on a more regular basis with day-to-day management? Otoh, we might still be completely in synch! >At the same time, with the numbers of attendants that >Axel posted, I am still worried over the lack of interest from the >community... Well, even a decision for a country to join the EU - or not - has problems to attract the interest of >50% of the electorate. And, the cost of attending an AGM in person, or to do it via remote participation (keeping in touch with meetings, minutes, discussions, manpower-wise throughout the whole year...) might be just as costly as the annual membership fee (or at least as the percentage of that which might get cut off, if you object to some issues)? >- kurtis - For me _one_ major (but maybe not _the_ only) problem is feature creep _in the address distribution policy_, and it's implementation by the NCC. Some of you might recall my comments about the cost of micro-management of /29s, resource reclamation discussions, and the like... Btw, I am glad that we (again just a small minority! And it would just cost a bag of recycled electrons for an email ;-0) have started to actually discuss things! Cheers, Wilfried.

1 0