Search results for "2023-04" - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid?

by Sander Steffann

> - realise that the current internet is not the internet that this DB was designed for > > Might as well stop issuing policy at all, then. The thought did cross my mind ;) Cheers! Sander

1 year, 2 months

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for?

by Randy Bush

> We simply cannot get many people to talk about many of the RIPE > Database issues. perhaps wg members are deterred by the walls of text with strong directives and opinions from a dominating co-chair (who lost the election but somehow is still here)? nothing the db wg does is worth the effort and pain, so we just go have coffee and get back to work. randy

1 year, 2 months

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

by Jan Ingvoldstad

Hello, Can the proposers please clarify how a change, that is claimed to change nothing, is a necessary change? Unless this is resolved, I oppose the change. -- Jan

1 year

Re: [address-policy-wg] @EXT: Inputs/observations from EUROPOLon proposal 2023-04

by Tore Anderson

On 20/12/23 17:27, denis walker wrote: > Most of these allocations are /24. So if 4551 of these /24 allocations > have no assignments, and the increase in allocations without > assignments is only 3536, then we actually have more allocations with > assignments than we had before, putting aside the /24 allocation > issue. So the trend is downwards. The overall number of allocations > without assignments is decreasing. Hello Denis, What do you mean when you say «the /24 allocation issue», exactly? Tore

1 year

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

by Jan Ingvoldstad

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 9:40 AM Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> wrote: > > Your conclusion that this situation results in a policy violation, is > however entirely contingent on your interpretation of the current policy > as mandating the publication of the End User's (non-delegated) contact > information. > Please stop misrepresenting this argument. -- Jan

11 months, 2 weeks

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

by Tore Anderson

Good morning Jan, On 12/01/24 07:25, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > I also do not understand what makes it so hard to say that: "Yes, the > current policy does state something else than NCC's interpretation of > it does, (…) We do not make statements that we do not believe to be true. In our opinion, the RIPE NCC implements current policy correctly. Tore & Jeroen

11 months, 2 weeks

Re: [address-policy-wg] @EXT: FW: Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status

by Tobias Fiebig

Dear Emmanuel, > As knowing the scope of Europol and digital investigation (we > work here), we repeat that the matter is not only being less > convenient. The matter is the loss of opportunities of identification > that will vanish for investigators... You are talking of scale. Just out of curiosity. How many addresses do you think does this pertain to at the moment? Meaning: How many PA addresses do you think have WHOIS set representing the End-User at the moment which might no longer be registered to the EU, i.e., how much data would you lose? With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias(a)fiebig.nl

8 months, 2 weeks

Re: [address-policy-wg] @EXT: FW: Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status

by Tobias Fiebig

Dear Emmanuel, > As knowing the scope of Europol and digital investigation (we > work here), we repeat that the matter is not only being less > convenient. The matter is the loss of opportunities of identification > that will vanish for investigators... You are talking of scale. Just out of curiosity. How many addresses do you think does this pertain to at the moment? Meaning: How many PA addresses do you think have WHOIS set representing the End-User at the moment which might no longer be registered to the EU, i.e., how much data would you lose? With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias(a)fiebig.nl

8 months, 2 weeks

Consensus – 2023-04: Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments

by Leo Vegoda

Dear Working Group, No new objections were raised during the Concluding (Last Call) phase. The community has achieved a consensus. The RIPE NCC can proceed with implementation. Our thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion. In particular, we'd like to thank Tore and Jeroen for the calm professionalism they demonstrated. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs

8 months, 1 week

Best Operatonal Practices Registration/Contact Information - WAS:: 2023-04 Discussion scope

by Sebastian Graf

Dear WG! I would like to propose that we start working on *a "Best current operational Practices" Document for "Registration Information/Contact Information".* The idea is that the document is done in a similar manner to the "Best Current Operational Practice for Operators: IPv6 prefix assignment for end-users"(https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690). Why do it this way, instead of alter the policy? I do not belive we would ever be able to accuratly cover every possible scenario (without introducing a lot of annoyance/complexity/overhead). However..having a guide/idea to help community members with common scenarios/inspiration for the own documentation - makes a lot of sense. Kind regards, Sebastian On 1/12/24 08:56, Alex Le Heux wrote: > Dear Working Group, > > During the discussion about AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments the argument has been raised that this proposal would substantially change the registration requirements for end-user assignments in the RIPE DB and the discussion has been going around in circles ever since. > > We would like to point out the following: > > From the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis: > > [...] > > Acceptance of this proposal will not change the fact that the RIPE NCC cannot enforce which contact details members add to their IPv4 PA assignments in the RIPE Database; this will remain their decision. > > [...] > > As well as: > > It is fact that the RIPE NCC has interpreted the current policy to not require a PA Assignment in the RIPE DB to include the actual name and email address of the end-user since at leas the late 1990s. Registering a PA Assignment with something like "CUSTOMER-1234" and an email address pointing to the LIR has been acceptable for all this time. > > > > In its impact analysis the RIPE NCC has indicated that this proposal does not change this interpretation. > > It should therefore be clear that 2023-04 does not in fact change anything regarding how end-user details will actually be registered in PA Assignments. > > However, is has been argued that this interpretation is wrong and that PA Assignments in the RIPE DB must include the actual end-user details. And even though this is out of scope for the 2023-04 discussion, it is still something that is worth resolving. As changing this interpretation would be a major departure of many years of accepted practice and potentially involve updating thousands of RIPE DB objects, we feel this discussion would be best served by an independent policy proposal that clarifies the issue and would like to invite the working group to enter one. > > Kind regards, > > Alex Le Heux, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs

11 months, 2 weeks

address-policy-wg search results for query "2023-04"