Re: [sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

2020-02-23 Thread Srinivas Chendi 
Hello Jordi,

On 22/02/2020 2:20 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After my previous response to Owen, I can't find anymore any the text in the 
> actual policy (neither guidelines)  about assignments. So, I'm wondering if I 
> was wrong, or it has been removed at some point and I don't recall it ... 
> Could the secretariat point out to the specific text about that? If it has 
> been removed, clearly there is a need to further update section 2.2.3 to 
> remove that reference and avoid the mismatch.

You mean section 2.2.3 text? It is not removed. You can find it in the 
current policy manual here

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space


> 
> One more request for the secretariat. Could you please provide stats on the 
> number of ISP (not end-users) assignments, for example in the last 12-15 
> years, in order to understand if this is a real requirement?

Noted! Secretariat will provide the stats soon.

Regards
Sunny

> 
> Anyone can provide examples of why an ISP could need and assignment instead 
> of using their own allocation?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>   
>   
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   
> *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> 
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

2020-02-23 Thread Srinivas Chendi 
Hi Jordi,

On 21/02/2020 3:20 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Thanks Bertrand,
> 
> I’m fine as well with this option. Repeating it here:
> 
> "Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned".
> 
> Could the secretariat let us know if they still believe there is any text 
> that is "unnecessarily duplicated" or if they could live with that?

As reported at APNIC 49 Policy SIG, Secretariat do not have any issues 
with the current policy text nor the proposed text in version 2 of prop-133.

Secretariat impact assessment comments for any new versions of this 
proposal will be shared with the community after the proposal is 
formally submitted to the Policy SIG Chairs.

> 
> Note that it seems that emails using DMARC still get wrong to the mailing 
> list. It will be very important that the secretariat resolves that, 
> otherwise, some participants are not getting emails from some of us 
> (including me). So, no wonder that they don’t respond!

Thanks for reporting this issue. Secretariat is looking into it and will 
provide an update soon.

Regards
Sunny

> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 21/2/20 15:14, "Bertrand Cherrier" 
>  mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> escribió:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> Thank you Jordi for this revised prop.
> How about this :
> 
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned.
> 
> It would be nice to have inputs from other members of the Policy SIG, 
> especially from those who opposed this proposal.
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> 
> Bertrand Cherrier
> Administration Systèmes - R
> Micro Logic Systems
> mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc
> https://www.mls.nc
> Tél : +687 24 99 24
> VoIP : 65 24 99 24
> SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)
> 
> On 21 Feb 2020, at 11:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As you know, we have decided to continue the discussion of this proposal in 
> the mailing list.
> 
> I've been thinking in a possible way to keep the "documented purposes" text 
> as some indicated in the mike.
> 
> So, what do you feel about these two choices:
> 
> Option a)
> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate.
> 
> Option b)
> 2.2.3. Assigned address space
> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or 
> end-user, for specific, documented purposes and exclusive use within the 
> infrastructure they operate and may not be sub-assigned to other networks.
> 
> My personal preference, and following the staff analysis in v2, will be 
> option a, but just in case the community prefers to re-state "and may not be 
> sub-assigned to other networks" (I believe, and also according to the staff 
> inputs that "exclusive" is already indicating it).
> 
> Just as a reminder, the actual proposal (v2) is at:
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/prop-133-v002.txt
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * 
> ___ sig-policy mailing list 
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 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 
>

[sig-policy] prop-130: Modification of transfer policies returned to author

2020-02-23 Thread Bertrand Cherrier 

Dear colleagues

Version 2 of prop-130: Modification of transfer policies, did not reach 
consensus at the APNIC 49 Open Policy Meeting.


The Policy SIG Chairs returned the proposal to the author for further 
discussion with the community and invited the author to submit an

amended version based on the community's feedback.

Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and 
links to previous versions are available at:


https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-130/

Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
Policy SIG Chairs
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

[sig-policy] prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments returned to author

2020-02-23 Thread Bertrand Cherrier 

Dear colleagues,

Version 2 of prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments, did not reach 
consensus at the APNIC 49 Open Policy Meeting.


The Policy SIG Chairs returned the proposal to the author for further 
discussion with the community and invited the author to submit an

amended version based on the community's feedback.

Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and 
links to previous versions are available at:


https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-133/

Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
Policy SIG Chairs
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

[sig-policy] prop-134: PDP Update withdrawn by author

2020-02-23 Thread Bertrand Cherrier 

Dear colleagues

Version 2 of prop-134: PDP Update, did not reach consensus and was 
withdrawn by the author at the APNIC 49 Open Policy Meeting.


Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and 
links to previous versions are available at:


https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-134/

We'd like to thank the author and everyone for taking the time to 
discuss this proposal.


Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
Policy SIG Chairs
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy