Re: [sig-nir] prop-054: NIR operational policy document revision

  • To: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-nir] prop-054: NIR operational policy document revision
  • From: Sanjaya <sanjaya at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:38:06 +1000
  • Delivered-to: sig-nir at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <47BEB153.2020002 at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: "APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries \(NIRs\)" <sig-nir.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-nir@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>, <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>, <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Organization: APNIC
  • References: <12EFCED1-A71E-4BD8-A6B7-EF31422AB54D@apnic.net> <47BE3CC3.8000409@nic.ad.jp> <EC4981E8-A31B-4273-AB2C-2983BFA2EE33@apnic.net> <47BEB153.2020002@nic.ad.jp>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
      • Just to clarify, that paragraph was not proposed to be included in the policy document. Shin, are you suggesting that we should add a clause in the policy document that state a minimum implementation time frame?
      We don't think it is necessary to put any implementation time frame in the policy document because it's a high level document. We never know what technology will come in the future, and how long implementation should take. As Terry said, some could be implemented fairly quickly, others may take a few years to implement. 
      
Cheers,
Sanjaya

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