We've been thinking about this for some time and attempting to find a way
through the various comments and messages in regards to 2017-02.
We believe the best option at this point is to extend the review phase of this
proposal for a further 4 weeks as we do not believe rough consensus has been
reached. However we also do not believe that there has been sufficient clear
argument to reject the proposal.
We think that during this time it would be useful if those who engaged in the
discussion but did not express a preference could do so.
It would also be useful if those who commented on the first version of the
proposal, especially those who objected, still objected after the second
version was published.
It should also be noted that the NCC have laid out the method by which they
would plan to implement this proposal, so we do not believe that discussion
around alternative methods nor additional checks is germane. It is also clear
that the ARC will be used in conjunction with the automated checks. It is also
clear that this will not require "make work" from any admins to answer.
Finally we need to address the objections around the possible implications of
organisations *not* following this policy. It is clear that 2017-02 does not
attempt to introduce any additional processes nor change how the NCC would act
in cases where policies are not followed. We believe this has been clarified.
If members of the community have an issue with these procedures then we think
that's a separate discussion, rather than a valid reason to object to 2017-02
Other than those listed above, there was a feeling expressed that this will not
make any meaningful difference. Both the RIPE NCC and the proposers have said
that this work to improve the quality of data will be greatly appreciated. We
would also mention that policies can be further amended in the future.
So, if everyone could take a look at the latest version of 2017-02 again that
would be appreciated.
If you have already stated your support there is no need to do so.
If you are opposed, then please consider the above and the various discussions
and see if you are still opposed to this version of the proposal. If so, can
you please state which reasons for opposition have not been clarified nor
Obviously if you haven't stated a preference either way, as I mention above,
this is your opportunity to do so!
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
Network Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270