So far the points myself and other raised about the proposal were not intended to improve it, but to justify its intent doesn't seem to have a strong justification given the viable options available and the impact/gain to the community. You are the only person who has raised "concerns" about v2 which was the version that sought consensus. The JPOPF-ST shared their concerns based on v1 and I answered their concerns in a rather extensive email. My message was more in the sense for the Chairs to explain their reasoning for giving consensus to it so everybody can understand what main points were taken into consideration in order to disregard all objections that were raised and in my view not properly resolved. The document APNIC-111 (APNIC Policy Development Process) details quite well, I might add, how the Chairs would seek consensus. The default behavior should always be for the author or those who support, to take the burden to justify why the proposal is necessary, what eventual problems will be resolved or scenarios that will be improved that will benefit the community and that works also by responding and resolving any eventual issues raised during the discussion. Not all points were sufficiently resolved from my point of view. I would expect normally that Chairs to keep notes of each major point raised as an issue and how that was handled. At the end if something is proposed and either is understood to not bring any significant benefit to the community, have issues or is already covered by some other scenario or technical or administrative option than that proposal may not be needed. If you believe the PDP can be improved, please do submit a proposal. I look forward to seeing it. In order to help with that I will try to put below some of the main points raised during the discussion:
- We are in IPv4 exhaustion for quiet a while. What justification we have to need this policy that cannot be resolved with what we have already ? Why events must issue public IPv4 to participants in times of IPv4 exhaustion ? Does that not sound a luxury ? I've already addressed this, and if you're asking again it either shows you do not or choose to not understand. - Is it reasonable to think that most of these participants - that work in the Internet industry - don't have remote VPNs available so they can work remotely ? Should we understand that the normal behavior for someone to work remotely is really whitelist their public IPv4 on the company's firewall like did decades ago ? Again, already been addressed. - What is the block to use CGNAT solutions which have technology readily available and keep all necessary records ? For a third time, already explained. - RIRs have the duty to preserve the little IP space that is left and should be careful and avoid creating more unneeded exceptions if there are viable and workable options available. For reasons already explained, CGNAT and 464XLAT are not viable alternatives to using public IP space. I really don't want to just sound a blocker to this proposal, but it is important to have a record of issues raised in detail, specially when a proposal hasn't got too much discussion and exhaust all main concerns in order to have a new policy, if it is properly justified. Concerns do not require a resolution prior to consensus being reached, it only requires an acknowledgement. I addressed all of the raised concerns. Regards, Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
