< curmudgeonly position >

Do you therefore feel that APNIC's discrete AS0 TAL is not a good long-term model? We deliberately went opt-in, and said so.

you rir folk seem to breed tals like flies. i still think i should need one tal, the iana's. and will all rirs issue an as0 for 10/8? nice. at least, if i use net 10 internally, my local root ca's roas for it will override your 5 or whatever as0 roas.

We proposed this during initial deployment to ensure we had a make-before-break outcome for relying parties, but it does reduce uptake (during the test period at best <100 people have participated)

perhaps because ops seem disinclined to complex tal management.

If we include the AS0 under the mainline TAL, then this is 'opt out' behaviour for RP's (they would have to do conscious work e.g. locally managed SLURM) to re-validate prefixes, rather than opt-in.

back to an unauthenticated slurm, eh? randy, who also did not like or use the dnssec dlv hack

Hi, I don't think is right for the chairs to withdraw a policy proposal. The authors, or other authors have always the right to send a new proposal. I think we are here misjudging what rough consensus means, which shall be interpreted as per RFC7282. There must be solid technical arguments against a proposal, not personal opinions. I don't think "fierce opposition" and "doubt that will reach consensus" aren't reasonable arguments. We can show many situations where a long discussion or after a pause (such as the summer) drives to different conclusions. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 8/7/20 15:29, "routing-wg en nombre de Paul Hoogsteder" <routing-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de paul@meanie.nl> escribió: Dear Routing WG, dear authors of 2019-08 "SLURM file for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space", after the previous Review phase (v2 of the proposal) didn't reach consensus in April I asked the authors whether they would like to withdraw the proposal or come up with a new one. A new proposal "SLURM file for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space" was written and a new Review phase started on the 25th of May 2020, we had a few messages on the mailinglist in reply to that. This phase ended on June 23. I have concluded that no rough consensus has been reached this time either as raised concerns have not been addressed, and judging by the sometimes fierce opposition I doubt that we will reach consensus with a few small changes to the proposal and a new Review phase - and therefore I have decided to withdraw the proposal. Kind regards, Paul Hoogsteder RIPE Routing WG co-chair > Dear colleagues, > > Policy proposal 2019-08, “SLURM file for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE > NCC Address Space", is now in the Review Phase. > > The proposal aims for the RIPE NCC to publish a SLURM file (Simplified > Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI), containing > assertions with the origin “AS0” for all unallocated and unassigned > address space under our control. > > The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion. > Version 3 of the proposal has moved from instructing the RIPE NCC to > create ROAs to creating a SLURM file for use with Relying > Parties/Validators. > > The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal > version to support the community’s discussion. > > You can find the proposal and impact analysis at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-08 > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-08#impact-analysis > > And the draft documents at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-08/draft > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four > week Review Phase is to continue discussion of the proposal, taking the > impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE > Policy Document. > > At the end of the Review Phase, the working group chairs will determine > whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to > provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input > from the previous phase. > > We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document > and send any comments to <routing-wg@ripe.net> before 23 June 2020. > > Kind regards, > -- > Petrit Hasani > Policy Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Petrit, I'm very aware of RIPE710 ... was the last one to modify it :-) so I've read it a few times. I fully understand that the technical chairs can do that but also that proposal can be resent, and this is what I've said. So, in my opinion under that perspective, it is wrong that chairs take that decisions (even if the PDP allows it), in the sense that it is a non-sense. Chairs take that decision, and same authors or someone else, resend it and we never end. However, I also said that we are not really taking a good decision based on what is rough consensus, if we are deciding that based on some people don't like the proposal, but there are no good technical arguments against it. Objecting a proposal, like in IETF objecting to a document, must be fully technically justified, not based on "what I like or dislike". Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 8/7/20 16:09, "Petrit Hasani" <phasani@ripe.net> escribió: Hi Jordi, Whilst it is not up to me to respond to any official complain, if you decide to make one, I would like to share some information on the process. If I understand you correctly, you are not objecting that rough consensus was not reached during the review phase, rather that the working group chair does not have the authority to withdraw a proposal. The phases of the policy development process in RIPE are defined in ripe-710: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 Whilst after the "Discussion Phase" the proposer has the right to resubmit a new version, the situation differs after the “Review Phase” where it is the WG chair who decides how to proceed. The Policy Development Process in RIPE document describes that: "At the end of the Review Phase, the WG chair determines whether the WG has reached rough consensus. If the WG chair decides that consensus has not been reached, then the WG chair can withdraw the proposal.“ The WG chair also has the alternative to send the proposal back for discussion or extend the review phase , however that remains at the discretion of the WG chair: Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC > On 8 Jul 2020, at 15:39, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg <routing-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > I don't think is right for the chairs to withdraw a policy proposal. The authors, or other authors have always the right to send a new proposal. > > I think we are here misjudging what rough consensus means, which shall be interpreted as per RFC7282. There must be solid technical arguments against a proposal, not personal opinions. > > I don't think "fierce opposition" and "doubt that will reach consensus" aren't reasonable arguments. > > We can show many situations where a long discussion or after a pause (such as the summer) drives to different conclusions. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > El 8/7/20 15:29, "routing-wg en nombre de Paul Hoogsteder" <routing-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de paul@meanie.nl> escribió: > > Dear Routing WG, dear authors of 2019-08 "SLURM file for Unallocated and > Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space", > > after the previous Review phase (v2 of the proposal) didn't reach > consensus in April I asked the authors whether they would like to withdraw > the proposal or come up with a new one. > > A new proposal "SLURM file for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address > Space" was written and a new Review phase started on the 25th of May 2020, > we had a few messages on the mailinglist in reply to that. This phase > ended on June 23. > > I have concluded that no rough consensus has been reached this time either > as raised concerns have not been addressed, and judging by the sometimes > fierce opposition > I doubt that we will reach consensus with a few small changes to the > proposal and a new Review phase - and therefore I have decided to withdraw > the proposal. > > Kind regards, > > Paul Hoogsteder > RIPE Routing WG co-chair > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Policy proposal 2019-08, “SLURM file for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE >> NCC Address Space", is now in the Review Phase. >> >> The proposal aims for the RIPE NCC to publish a SLURM file (Simplified >> Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI), containing >> assertions with the origin “AS0” for all unallocated and unassigned >> address space under our control. >> >> The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion. >> Version 3 of the proposal has moved from instructing the RIPE NCC to >> create ROAs to creating a SLURM file for use with Relying >> Parties/Validators. >> >> The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal >> version to support the community’s discussion. >> >> You can find the proposal and impact analysis at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-08 >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-08#impact-analysis >> >> And the draft documents at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-08/draft >> >> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four >> week Review Phase is to continue discussion of the proposal, taking the >> impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE >> Policy Document. >> >> At the end of the Review Phase, the working group chairs will determine >> whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to >> provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input >> from the previous phase. >> >> We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document >> and send any comments to <routing-wg@ripe.net> before 23 June 2020. >> >> Kind regards, >> -- >> Petrit Hasani >> Policy Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Gert, I may be wrong ... but I can't find any text in RIPE-710, where it sets any filter by the chairs to accept a proposal, neither anyway for the chairs to reject a proposal, there is only a pre-qualification of the most appropriate WG. I'd actually this debate already with a previous RIPE chair a few years ago, so I recall it very well. El 8/7/20 19:59, "routing-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" <routing-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gert@space.net> escribió: Hi, On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 04:32:00PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg wrote: > I fully understand that the technical chairs can do that but also that proposal can be resent, and this is what I've said. So, in my opinion under that perspective, it is wrong that chairs take that decisions (even if the PDP allows it), in the sense that it is a non-sense. Chairs take that decision, and same authors or someone else, resend it and we never end. Chairs are free to not accept the proposal if it's being re-sent again and again with no material changes. Gert Doering -- with some exposure to that -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

I would agree on an update to the RIPE710 if we want to make that explicit. However, I don't think that a DoS can be generated, and on the other way around, WG chairs could DoS authors ... The community are the "kings" of the process. Part of the community may want to have a proposal, part of the community not, how the chairs decide?. Not really clear chairs can be wrong, or have some bias. If we do nothing and we allow authors to re-send a proposal, and the community (or 99% of it) is not willing to "participate", they just can stay silent. Consensus can't be declared. Of course, all this is clearly a separate discussion for the "plenary", not the routing WG, as we did in the 710 update ... and work for the new RIPE chair and vice-chair :-) On my part, I'm happy to draft the document if needed. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 8/7/20 20:09, "routing-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" <routing-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gert@space.net> escribió: Hi, On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 08:04:35PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg wrote: > I may be wrong ... but I can't find any text in RIPE-710, where it sets any filter by the chairs to accept a proposal, neither anyway for the chairs to reject a proposal, there is only a pre-qualification of the most appropriate WG. > > I'd actually this debate already with a previous RIPE chair a few years ago, so I recall it very well. Indeed, it's not written explicitly, but as you well know, it's done that way - the proposer picks a WG to submit to, and the PDO asks the WG chairs if that is OK. An update to write that down sounds like a reasonable plan. (And it very obviously must be that way, otherwise a frustrated proposer can easily DoS a working group - which must be preventable) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.