Re: [sig-nir] prop-054: NIR operational policy document revision
about the suggested change?
izumi
Shin Yamasaki wrote:
> Terry,
>
> My intention is having more room if necessary in addition to the minumum
> 6-month notice period, so dropping the paragraph makes me feel losing
> the bottom line.
>
> Shin
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [sig-nir] prop-054: NIR operational policy document revision
> From: Terry Manderson <terry at apnic dot net>
> To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
> CC: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
> Date: Fri Feb 22 2008 15:29:56 GMT+0900
>
>> Izumi and All,
>>
>> Actually, we have been discussing this internally and we have come to
>> the conclusion that the 6 month issue is in the "disadvantages"
>> section and does not get reflected in the policy document itself.
>>
>> Given that we are actually trying to make the situation less
>> prescriptive for both NIR and APNIC alike, how about we simply drop
>> the commitment paragraph:
>>
>> To ensure that NIRs have enough time to adapt to the changes,
>> the APNIC Secretariat will commit to a six-month notice period
>> between announcing changes to the system and expected
>> implementation by NIRs.
>>
>> Our intention was to soften the issue that the NIR may have to make
>> changes to their systems.
>>
>> It also was suggested that for some small changes in operation a month
>> might be sufficient or for larger concerns a much longer time
>> required. The point being that we will discuss changes with you well
>> in advance.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Terry
>>
>> On 22/02/2008, at 1:08 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have further comments on Terry's response, Shin?
>>>
>>> Comments on other NIR are also welcome.
>>>
>>> Feel free to express questions, comments, or even a simple expression
>>> of support is also a useful input :-).
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> Terry Manderson wrote:
>>>> Hi Shin,
>>>>
>>>>> Shin wrote:
>>>>> - Do you support moving the technical descriptions of managing
>>>>> reverse DNS zone out of 'Operational policies for National Internet
>>>>> Registries in the APNIC region' and onto the APNIC website?
>>>>> Currently I cannot find the equivalent part of section 3.4 of
>>>>> APNIC-103-v001 in the web page stated in the proposal:
>>>>> http://www.apnic.net/services/dns_guide.html
>>>>> Unless APNIC clearly describes all required procedures in the page
>>>>> before Policy SIG in APNIC 25, it is difficult to support this part.
>>>>> The best I could bend backward is that APNIC posts the content of
>>>>> the addendum to the web page to this mailing list.
>>>>> Without that, it could be blind approval for non-existent procedure.
>>>> I will endeavour to create a draft of that page, or furnish the
>>>> information that will be provided on that url to the list before the
>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> However you can expect that it would simply reflect the preferred
>>>> methods for updating the DNS, those being MyAPNIC and the XML/REST
>>>> API. We clearly need to be careful about releasing the API
>>>> information
>>>> as it isn't yet a member wide service.
>>>>
>>>>> In the Disadvantages: part in the Pros/Cons section, | To ensure
>>>>> that NIRs have enough time to adapt to the changes, | the APNIC
>>>>> Secretariat will commit to a six-month notice period | between
>>>>> announcing changes to the system and expected | implementation
>>>>> by NIRs.
>>>>> I prefer to change this to: To ensure that NIRs have enough time to
>>>>> adapt to the changes, the APNIC Secretariat will commit to at least
>>>>> six-month notice period between announcing changes to the system
>>>>> and expected implementation by NIRs.
>>>> Given that our development process is transparent, such that we are
>>>> quite overt about upcoming work in the secretariat that may affect
>>>> the
>>>> NIRs. I'm guessing that your concern directly relates to your ability
>>>> implement in 6 months assuming that you hadn't heard of it
>>>> previously.
>>>> So in applying this to future (not already scheduled) changes..
>>>>
>>>> How does this sound as an alternative?
>>>> -----
>>>> To ensure that NIRs have enough time to be both aware of the changes
>>>> and adapt their systems to the changes, the APNIC Secretariat will
>>>> commit to the following notice periods:
>>>> 1) Notification of development or work-in-progress of three(3) to
>>>> Six(6) months, prior to:
>>>> 2) A six(6) month notice period to implementation by the NIR.
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>>> The notice period can be extended upon request from APNIC or an
>>>>> NIR.
>>>> I think I would find this acceptable if the request came with
>>>> supporting reasons why the request needs to be extended, such that
>>>> the
>>>> reason for extension is in the best interests of the common good for
>>>> continuous improvement or a direct conflict with another APNIC
>>>> operational change at that time.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Terry
>>>> --
>>>> Terry Manderson email: terry at apnic dot net
>>>> Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info at voip dot apnic dot net
>>>> http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sig-nir mailing list
>>>> sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>> --
>> Terry Manderson email: terry at apnic dot net
>> Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info at voip dot apnic dot net
>> http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-nir mailing list
>> sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>
>
>
