31st RIPE Meeting Plenary Minutes - DRAFT RIPE 31 Edinburgh, 23, 24 and 25 September 1998 Plenary Session Chair: Rob Blokzijl Scribe: Naomi de Bruyn/Mirjam Kuehne 1. Opening 2. Agenda 3. Minutes RIPE 30 4. From the Chair (Rob Blokzijl) 5. Report from the RIPE NCC (Mirjam Kuehne) 6. RIPE NCC 1999 Activity Plan (Daniel Karrenberg) 7. RIPE NCC 1998 Annual general Meeting (Keith Mitchell) 8. Some aspects of the new IANA (Dave Crocker) 9. New IANA: Progress reports (RIPE, RIPE NCC, CENTR) 10. European CERT Activities (Brian Gilmore) 11. Merit Post Routing Arbiter Activities (Gerald Winters) 12. Reports from the Working Groups 13. Next meetings 14. AOB 15. Close ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1. - Opening Rob Blokzijl opened the plenary session of the 31st RIPE meeting. - 2. - Agenda The agenda was approved as advertised. These minutes follow the agenda. - 3. - Minutes RIPE 30 The minutes of RIPE 30 were approved as they had been circulated before the meeting. No comments/additions. - 4. - From the chair Rob Blokzijl thanked the organization. - 5. - Report from the RIPE NCC (Mirjam Kuehne) http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/ripe-31/pres/ncc-report/index.html Q: When will the RIPE NCC report on Y2 compliance A: Maldwyn Morris: we start testing after RIPE 31 meeting in a couple of weeks time. As soon as we know what to do we will put a report on the web. Q: It might be useful to have more info on query statistics, not only how much but also on domain and Inetnums etc. also where domain would be delegated, whether change would be accepted or not. A: Daniel Karrenberg (Dfk): we will work on something. Q: Pgp authentication. Last meeting NCC said we had license for pgp. A: Joao Damas: we are finishing procedures, we'll be reviewing them and let everyone know. You will need to have a mntner object, you have to request that. It will check if you actually have a mntner object, we'll register it when we actually get the license. Details will be published in a few weeks. Q: did the NCC get much comments about problems with net66 allocations? A: Mirjam Kuehne: we have not had much feedback lately, in the beginning we constantly talked to people. Are frequently seeing customers with fire-walls get on-authorized requests. * Routing group discussion: signal queries versus Dfk we are doing that. Will not show. - 6. - RIPE NCC 1999 Activities and expenditure (Daniel Karrenberg) Q: what about using the web for payments? A: Dfk: we do have membership payments by credit card. People are reminded that this is not prefered, preferably by bank. It could be a way to improve no-payments of regular fees and meeting fees. Do people want the ncc to get a secure webserver? Hear a lot of yes. Pgp could be a potential solution? Maldwyn Morris will put the ripe-141 request form on web, we want to also use pgp for that, so the two might come together. Dfk: we will look into various things. Q: Procedure for re-allocating address space. A: Dfk we have a procedure at the moment, taking space away is not the prime objective. During some stage we look at whether there are announcements. This usually does not result in taking space away, can't do anything about the routing other then talking to the upstreams. At the very end of the procedure might take away inaddr. Not as effective as taking away routing but will work. Haven't reached those stages yet. As a first step take we do not take the already assigned address space. Only the space that was not assigned yet, we will formally take back. We don't want to hurt the users. Q: RIPE NCC gives address space to a LIR but if that LIR then assigns that address space to a 'user' we must try not to hurt that user. Hard to see the business part in that, trying to understand the explanation. A: Dfk: we don't lease. We have allocations and assignments. In our registration procedures there is a formal step, we give allocations. But nobody but a LIR can give assignments. They cannot allocate. The assignments hold and the allocation is taken back. - 7. - RIPE NCC 1998 Annual General Meeting (Keith Mitchell) Keith asked contributors present to please attend the AGM, which will take place at Amsterdam Schiphol Hilton. Discussed will be the fact that we need to make sure we have one AGM meeting a year instead of 2. Furthermore we plan to discuss the budget and the fees that come out of that budget. Important also is the election of candidates/board members. - 8. - EUROCERT. European Incident Response coordination service. (Brian Gilmore. Vice president of technical programme of TERENA) http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/ripe-31/pres/euro-cert/index.html Q: What is the level of contribution you would expect of an ISP A: 10.000 ECU as a sign-up fee. Terena expects to hand over this to someone else. A hot topic currently for discussion is to where it should go, to Dante? Or Ukerna (?) This will be discussed during contributors committee meeting next week. - 9. - Merit Post Routing Arbiter Activities (Gerald Winters) 'Post-Routing Arbiter Merit Activities' Gerald Winters, Graig Labovitz Merit network Inc. http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/ripe-31/pres/merit/index.html - 10. - Some aspects of the new IANA (Dave Crocker) Level 10 Routing Long Division and Irrational Factions http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/ripe-31/pres/level-10-routing/index.html Dave Crocker gave some history about technical and managerial issues that led to the current debate about the IANA. NSF made the initial mistake to hand over a revenue stream to NSI, of course NSI is now trying hard to keep it, and others try to get a part of the pie. Authority was given to IANA by the community, funding was given by the US government. The US government funding should have stoped earlier and taken over by the community. The discussion started by the US government by their green paper de-stabelised the Internet administration. He then described the process of the ad hoc committee that was set up to built new gTLDs. Also here, a few mistakes were made, even though many good principles were in the structure (not-for profit registries, independent oversight committees etc.). After that work had been done, it has been discovered that the world had changed. There were constructive discussions in the technical community. But there were also new players that had never heard of the Internet before but had much influence in the White House and that wanted to have a part of the pie. Which mistakes were made in this process: - technical community ended up in political discussions, where they were only used to hold technical debates. People who could not build the Internet, were trying to take it over. Dave Crockers says: we like to say "We are only technicians, not politicians" But in fact we created a social order, globally, that works for this type of technical activities. It is now under social threat. We do have influence and we should use it (difference between the green and the white paper shows that this works). The current set of bylaws (version 4) guarantee that no useful activity can happen for the next years, it is much too complicated to be implemented. The community can change things, but not with being polite! - 11. - New IANA: Progress reports (RIPE, RIPE NCC, CENTR) Keith Mitchell (chairman of RIPE NCC board) He has been very disappointed about the process and about the many unconstructive people involved in discussion, without taking the fact into account that we have a deadline to meet. He also critises the IFWP process (attended two of their meetings), main issues were domain name issues. Address issues were put aside (being ignored) Critises that wrap-up meeting was closed, this was then not going to happen and took place anyway. Then the NSI and IANA joined set of bylaws came out under strange circumstances. Points out a few details of the current draft (can be found on NCC reaction, see www.ripe.net/news/). In particular the focus on a membership organisation; user community is represented in too many places compared to other technical representation (through at large board members and through individual membership in the supporting organisations). What can we do: 1. common statement from this community (including various groups) 2. put names forward for the at large board members other than that he is worried that the whole process will be run by US government. Randy Bush added one correction: there was not only discussion between NSI and IANA, but also between NSI and US government. And another possibility of influencing the procedure is to involve the European Commission. Niall O'Reilly as the representative of the CENTR group added to that that also CENTR has sent out a reaction to the current set of IANA bylaws. This covered most of the facts that were also mentioned in the RIPE NCC reaction. Daniel Karrenberg adds to the discussion that he received a mail from Jon Postel who said that the IANA received the reactions from this community and listend to them. They are currently working very hard to put out a new version very soon. Hans Peter Holen asks if one possibility would be to dicuss here or in a small group concrete suggestions for changes. Come and speak to him any time, RIPE NCC is coordinating it. Frode Greisen suggests that the RIPE community brings out a resolution that says that the IANA should go back to version 3 of the bylaws. Q: Did the US government discuss the issue with other governments? Dfk: knows that they are discussing certainly with the EC and also with other governments. Keith Mitchell supports Frode Greisens suggestions. Send out statement 'go back to version 3, it wasn't broken, don't fix it.' Randy Bush supports the idea and suggests that RIPE together with the RIPE NCC and CENTR produces this statement, this would make it stronger. This idea was supported by the participants. - 12. - Reports from the Working Groups Database WG ----------- Chair: Wilfried Woeber Scribe: Ambrose Magee Participants: 50 EIX WG ------ Chair: Keith Mitchell <keith@linx.org> Scribe: Kevin Hoadley Netnews WG ---------- Chair: Felix Kugler Scribes: Petra Zeidler/Stefan Sticht Attendees: 50 LIR WG ------ Chair: Hans Peter Holen <hph@sys.sol.no> Scribe: Julia Edwards Many thanks to Mike Norris for his long lasting contribution as the LIR Working Group chair and for chairing this meeting! Q: what is the distribution robot? A: When one sends a mail to <hostmaster@ripe.net>, you don't get in touch with human, but with a robot. Address allocations will be automatically checked. TLD WG ------ Chair: Niall O'Reilly Scribe: Lars-Johan Liman Attendees: 68 Routing WG - DSTF ----------------- Chair: Joachim Schmitz Scribe: Mirjam Kuehne, Julia Edwards Attendees: 99 Report from the RPSL Tutorial http://www.isi.edu/ra/rps/training Reports on RPSL Deployment http://www.isi.edu/ra/rps/transition DSTF ---- Topics PGP implementation Draft-zsako-ripe-dbsec-pgp-authent-00.txt Discussion of RPS auth draft Draft-ietf-rps-auth-01.txt Project for prefix/origin authentication Implementation in the RIPE database software Anti-SPAM WG ------------ Chair: James Aldridge Scribe: Petra Zeidler Q: Will there be any recommendations on whether there wil be any code of conduct for relay. A: ISPs should approach their customers. The providers have relationships with their customers, the working group will not go after them. Mbone WG -------- Chair: Kurt Kayser Scribe: Ronnie Mackenzie Attendees: 68 DNS WG ------ Chair: Ruediger Volk Ipv6 ---- Chair: David Kessens Scribe: Mirjam Kuehne Attendees: 80 Q: What is the current status of RIPE Ipv6 address assignment input from ncc A: Action: will start in January 1999 - 13. - Next meetings: RIPE 32: January 27-29 1999, Amsterdam RIPE 33: May 1999, Vienna RIPE 34: September 1999, Amsterdam RIPE 35: January 2000, Amsterdam - 14. - A.O.B. Version 4 draft of the bylaws of the new IANA organization; Rob: the wording of the text will be done by the chair and input from Niall O'Reilly. No comment from people present. More than 240 people registered for this meeting. We all thank Edinburgh University for their hospitality and especially Keith Mitchell and his colleagues for providing these excellent facilities! - 15. - Close