Hi Denis,
On 11/01/24 03:20, denis walker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 13:02, Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/01/24 11:25, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
Or you could take the other stance and stop publishing *any* contact
details regarding an object, because you cannot know whether the
information is personal data or not.
Exactly. LIRs may (but are not required to) chose this approach already
*today*. This is a common and long-standing practice which the RIPE NCC
has repeatedly clarified as compliant with today's policy.
This is one of your biggest false statements. The ONLY person
repeatedly saying this is YOU. Let's do a fact check here.
Yes, let us indeed do a fact check:
Exhibit 1:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-September/013856.html
Exhibit 2: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04
(specifically the «counter-argument», which the RIPE NCC Policy Officer
confirmed to the proposers and the WG chairs as correctly representing
the RIPE NCC's interpretation)
Exhibit 3:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04#impact-analysis
Exhibit 4:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-November/013892.html
Four repetitions so far, all saying the same thing. How many more do you
need?
We note that you have requested further clarifications from the RIPE NCC
tonight, which we of course look forward to.
This is total madness. You keep saying you have no intention of
changing anything else. You keep saying the wording change actually
changes nothing in practice. Some other people don't agree with you.
Just don't change wording that you claim changes NOTHING and has
nothing to do with aggregation and everyone is happy. The fact that
you are pushing so hard to make this wording change, you refuse to
back down or compromise, you insist on changing wording that changes
nothing and has nothing to do with aggregation...proves that you don't
believe that yourself. The fact is, I suspect that this is the real
change you want. You want to drop the current policy requirement to
define assignments with End User contacts. It is the aggregation that
is the side issue here. There is no other explanation for why you are
insisting so strongly on changing wording that changes nothing.
Here we find ourselves in conspiracy theory land, frankly. It makes zero
sense, too:
If our ulterior goal was to remove the End User contacts from our own
assignments we can just go ahead and do so, right now. The RIPE NCC is
already on the record saying that's totally OK, and we would be
following in the footsteps of many other LIRs who have already done so.
Why on Earth would we waste our time on a policy proposal?
If our ulterior goal was to remove the End User contacts from other
LIRs' assignments, 2023-04 simply doesn't accomplish this goal, because
it conveys no requirement on LIRs to remove anything from the database
whatsoever.
The RIPE NCC has not identified any unintended or ulterior side effect
caused by 2023-04 either, does that mean they are a part of the
conspiracy too?
As the RIPE NCC writes in the Impact Analysis (emphasis added):
«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.»
So, once again: which End User contact details LIRs publish (if any) is
their decision today, and it will be continue to be their decision if
2023-04 passes. Hence, 2023-04 does not effect any change in this regard.
This really does make me cry. The wording in the IA is poor. You have
applied an interpretation to this which I do not believe is what was
meant. Then the RIPE NCC legal team has remained silent. So I am
asking the RIPE NCC legal team to clearly explain what they meant by
this wording.
The explanation you request was posted two days after the Impact
Analysis was:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-November/013892.html
«LIRs are free to choose how to provide services and to who, this
includes their freedom to take over the responsibility as the point of
contact for their End User as well as having their maintainer in the
IPv4 PA assignments they register.»
This explanation aligns perfectly with our interpretation of the
statement in the Impact Analysis.
Given that, it is hard to see how we could possibly amend the proposal
to change this particular point to an even lesser extent than what is
already the case?
Let me help you. Do NOT remove a sentence that has nothing to do with
the stated goal of the proposal to aggregate assignments and that you
claim does not change anything.
This sentence also has a lot to do with the stated goal of aggregating
assignments, because it mandates that assignments must be «registered
separately». That is clearly incompatible with aggregation.
It would of course be possible to retain the old sentence as-is by
combining it with the new one copied from the IPv6 policy by using an
either/or construct, e.g.:
«When an End User has a network using public address space this must be
registered separately with the contact details of the End User or by
inserting an object with a status value of 'AGGREGATED-BY-LIR'».
That said, the actual policy outcome would as far as we can tell be
exactly the same as 2023-04 in its current form, so we assume you would
object to this language as well?
Tore & Jeroen
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
