Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"

2017-09-13 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
v6 allocation" Hi Jordi, Thank you for your response. 2017-09-09 12:40 GMT+08:00 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>: > Hi all, > > See my comments below in-line as [Jordi]. > > Regards, > Jordi >

Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"

2017-09-13 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> Responder a: <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> Fecha: jueves, 14 de septiembre de 2017, 9:00 Para: SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"

Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"

2017-09-12 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
the proposal that is not clear? > > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more > > effective? > > > > Information about this proposal is available at: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121 > > > &

Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"

2017-09-08 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> > > > prop-121-v001: Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy > > > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez > jordi.pa...@consulintel.es > &g

Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-122-v001: Updating "Subsequent IPv6 allocation " policy

2017-09-08 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-122 > > Regards > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > prop-122-v001: Updating “Subsequent IPv6 allocati

Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-121: Updating "InitialIPv6 allocation"

2017-09-10 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
; http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-121 > > Regards > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > prop-121-v001: Up

Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update

2018-08-13 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi all, I will like to provide some background, in case you’ve not read the complete proposal, about the intend. Actual PDP in APNIC only rely in looking into the consensus among the participants of the meeting. The SIG policy list is only considered as a way to “cancel” that. The

[sig-policy] prop-124: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

2018-08-13 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi all, Regarding this policy proposal (https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-124). I will like to understand if everybody got the issue. This problem is basically the same in all the 5 RIRs and I proposed the same text to all (in some cases got simplified). The

Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update

2018-08-16 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Satoru, Thanks for commenting the proposal. I realized that there is a mistake, because in step 1, the first sentence talks about 1 week, while the second still is 4 weeks. So, the typo is in the 2nd part. It should be: A formal proposal paper must be submitted to the SIG

Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update

2018-08-16 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
I think that there are not. Regards, Hiroki Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Date: Thu Aug 16 2018 21:51:25 GMT+0900 > Hi Satoru, > > Thanks for commenting the proposal. > > I realize

Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update

2018-09-06 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
process to confirm consensus at AMM. Regards, Hiroki Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Date: Fri Aug 17 2018 11:48:13 GMT+0900 > Hi Hiroki, > > Thanks for reading the proposal and providing inputs!

Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4

2018-09-10 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Satoru, Thanks for commenting on this. The current proposal text has not examples, I think it is quite neutral in this aspect: Providing addressing space to third party devices including addresses for point-to-point links and/or non-permanently providing addressing space to third

Re: [sig-policy] prop-125-v001: Validation of "abuse-mailbox" and other IRT emails

2018-09-10 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Satoru, all, Thanks again for your contribution. There are many ways to protect a whois “email” from spam. For example, you can request a manual intervention to actually “see” the email. I think this is an operational issue outside of the scope of the PDP, and should be sorted out

Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update

2018-09-10 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi again Satoru, all, Answers below, in-line, and thank again for your contribution. Regards, Jordi De: en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 14:04 Para: SIG policy Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] prop-126-v001 : PDP Update Dear Colleagues, I

Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4

2018-09-10 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
sure that ISPs, typically offering broadband services, aren’t end-users, as they should be LIRs. Regards, Jordi De: Owen DeLong Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 15:29 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ CC: Satoru Tsurumaki , SIG policy Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4

Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4

2018-09-11 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
PALET MARTINEZ CC: Satoru Tsurumaki , SIG policy Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4 Rather than explain each part of your text, I think it would be more useful if you explained where my text doesn’t convey the same intent. Owen On Sep 10, 2018, at 22:16 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-v001: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

2018-03-29 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi all, A short email to explain with a simple example what the actual policy avoids and what I’m trying to solve. If you’re a university or enterprise having a Provider Independent assignment from APNIC, and then a visitor or employee or student, etc., is willing to use the WiFi, the

Re: [sig-policy] Comments on Prop 124, 125, 126

2018-09-12 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wen DeLong) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 16:45:07 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: SIG policy Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; char

[sig-policy] consensus definition

2018-09-12 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi all, As introduced in the meeting, here is the definition for consensus that I've compiled for the PDP update in LACNIC last May. 2. Definition of ‘Consensus’ Achieving ‘consensus’ does not mean that proposals are voted for and against, nor that the number of ‘yes's’, ‘no's’ and

[sig-policy] comments regarding prop-126 (PDP Update)

2018-09-12 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi all, I think the clearest message form the SIG meeting today is that we must keep the 4 weeks period for the submission before the meeting. I will like to know if you will agree with something mid-term in between 1 week and 4 weeks. Does the community think that 2 or 3 weeks may be

Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN

2019-02-21 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi again Satoru, and once more many thanks for the inputs, If we keep “it holds previously-allocated provider independent address space”, then it means an organization, for example, deploying only IPv6, will not be able to get an ASN. Or even an organization willing to get IPv4, can’t

Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN

2019-02-26 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
, 22 de febrero de 2019, 19:00 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ CC: Satoru Tsurumaki , Policy SIG Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN On Feb 21, 2019, at 22:20 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi again Satoru, and once more many thanks for the inputs

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-version 5: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

2019-02-26 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
mentioned. Owen On Feb 21, 2019, at 21:46 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Dear Satoru, all, First of all, thanks a lot for your inputs! Let me try to clarify this. The text of the problem statement has been the same (maybe minor variations) across the 4 previous versions

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-version 5: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

2019-02-21 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Dear Satoru, all, First of all, thanks a lot for your inputs! Let me try to clarify this. The text of the problem statement has been the same (maybe minor variations) across the 4 previous versions, so it is difficult to understand what is not clear now, which can have been addressed

Re: [sig-policy] Version 3 - prop-126 PDP Update

2019-02-21 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Satoru, and again thanks a lot for the inputs, Let me try to explain this. The PDP is by definition a community matter. The AMM is a smaller subset than the community, which in turn is represented by the EC. In a bottom-up approach, it doesn’t make sense that a decision taken

Re: [sig-policy] Policy Proposal: prop-130-v001: Modification of transfer policies

2019-03-16 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Aftab, We are dealing with similar problems also in other regions, so regardless if this has been visible or not for the secretariat, the problem exists. As explained in the problem statement, the actual text (I’m going to speak in a generic way for all the cases, IPv4, IPv6 and ASN),

Re: [sig-policy] Policy Proposal: prop-130-v001: Modification of transfer policies

2019-03-19 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Sumon, I’m sure I’ve responded. I just looked at the email archive, just in case, and my response is there: https://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2019/03/msg3.html Regards, Jordi De: en nombre de Sumon Ahmed Sabir Fecha: martes, 19 de

Re: [sig-policy] prop-128-v001: Multihoming not required for ASN

2019-01-24 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
HI Aftab, Thanks for providing inputs! My reading of the actual policy is that it actually enforces the multihoming “in a reasonable future”. An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will meet the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

2019-05-11 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
ts updates that doesn’t relate to the management and use of internet address resources. Owen On May 10, 2019, at 09:30 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Paul, all, I feel that this proposed charter is not good enough. Let me try to explain it. In RIPE we have a WG for

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

2019-05-14 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
is very different, but let’s make sure we don’t have this situation replicated in other APNIC. Regards, Jordi El 11/5/19 18:05, "Owen DeLong" escribió: On May 11, 2019, at 06:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Just to make it clear. Do you believe that the PDP upd

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

2019-05-10 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Paul, all, I feel that this proposed charter is not good enough. Let me try to explain it. In RIPE we have a WG for every kind of “topic”, for example, addressing, abuse, routing, etc. The PDP updates are discussed in the “plenary” (we have recent small update and this was not

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

2019-05-14 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
cope for the SIG > The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a > useful discussion > The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority > > > Regards > Sunny > >> On 14/05

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

2019-05-14 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
by topics of greater priority Regards Sunny On 14/05/2019 8:11 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I’m not interpreting the PDP as part of that, however, I’m fine if the > staff confirms that it is in-scope according to their understanding. >

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

2019-05-14 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
a useful discussion The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority Regards Sunny On 14/05/2019 8:11 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I’m not interpreting the PDP as part of that, however, I’m fine if the > staff confirms that it is in-scope according to their understandi

Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

2019-08-26 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Javed, I don’t agree, let me explain why. The current process only talks about the meeting and the chairs have clearly indicated that they take in consideration the list and the confer. Anyone from the community that dislikes a consensus/non-consensus decision, could create a trouble

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-v006: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

2019-08-26 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Javed, I think you’re getting something wrong. Policies aren’t there so APNIC can verify “everything” to “every” member. This will be impossible. Policies are there so everybody know the rules, and try their best to avoid breaking them. Policies are there to avoid

Re: [sig-policy] editorial clarification on prop-131

2019-09-11 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
34, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" escribió: Hi all, Following the suggestion in the mic during the today SIG session, in section 5.2.4.3. the new title is "Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site", however in section 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment, is was

[sig-policy] editorial clarification on prop-131

2019-09-11 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi all, Following the suggestion in the mic during the today SIG session, in section 5.2.4.3. the new title is "Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site", however in section 10.1.4.1. Initial assignment, is was using a reference to "5.2.4.3. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-v006: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

2019-09-09 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Satoru, Thanks for investing time in the several policy proposals. I think that the last couple of emails could help all you to better understand the problem. Clearly, if different people read the current policy text in a different way, it will be much better to find a way so we have a

Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

2019-09-09 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Owen, El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" escribió: On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Javed, I don’t agree, let me explain why. The current process only talks about the meeting and the chairs have clearly indicated that

Re: [sig-policy] prop-131-v001: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy

2019-09-10 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Satoru, all, I understand your point. I'm happy to remove the text "BCOP RIPE690 Section 4.2, provides guidelines about this.". It was only a reference and mentioning it in the policy proposal introduction (which is not part of the policy text) is enought. So I'm going to send an updated

Re: [sig-policy] prop-131-v001: Editorial changes in IPv6 Policy

2019-09-10 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Hiroki, Just sent a response to this in the previous email. Note this is only a minor editorial change in the policy proposal, the rest of the text is much more relevant than just this detail. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 6/9/19 15:45, "Hiroki Kawabata" escribió: Hi all,

Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

2019-09-09 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Dear Saturo, See responses below, in-line. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 2/9/19 17:37, "Satoru Tsurumaki" escribió: Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team. I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-126, based

Re: [sig-policy] Policy Proposal: prop-130-v001: Modification of transfer policies

2019-09-09 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Satoru, all, There are two points here: 1) Provide clarity about Inter/Intra-RIR. It is not clear in actual policy if it is referring only to Intra-RIR M or also Inter-RIR. It seems clear that because there is a policy for Inter-RIR transfers, the M should also support Inter-RIR. 2) The

Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

2019-09-09 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
om: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Monday, 26 August 2019 6:05 PM To: Policy SIG Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update Hi Javed, I don’t agree, let me explain why. The current process only talks about the meeting and

Re: [sig-policy] Policy Proposal: prop-130-v001: Modification of transfer policies

2019-09-09 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Hiroki, all, Thanks for your inputs, allow me to clarify below, in-line. El 6/9/19 16:25, "Hiroki Kawabata" escribió: Hi all, About the part of IPv6, we oppose this. other parts are neutral. We have to make efforts to aggrigate IPv6 routes and to maintain sparse

Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

2019-09-14 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
work on setting up a mechanism for reviewing policies that have been implemented. Regards Amrita From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 4:57 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: Pol

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-v006: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

2019-09-09 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Owen, all, Sorry the late answer … been too busy the last weeks. Responses below, in-line. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 27/8/19 8:05, "Owen DeLong" escribió: On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:19 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Javed, I think you’

Re: [sig-policy] prop-124-v006: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

2019-09-09 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Hi Javed, I actually think this is in the other way around. I believe you’re confusing different terms, clearly described in the definitions section of the policy manual: 2.2.1. Delegated address space APNIC "delegates" addresses to its account holders. These delegations can be for

Re: [sig-policy] editorial clarification on prop-131

2019-09-18 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
No issue ! Thanks a lot! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 18/9/19 1:58, "Srinivas Chendi" escribió: Hi Jordi, Apologies for the error. This is now corrected and published. Regards Sunny On 12/09/2019 3:43 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: