Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
On 19/02/2009, at 12:58 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
Geoff Huston wrote:
Hi Izumi,
I don't know if it helps at all but I was mindful of this need for a
clear "history" of an address in an environment of address
transfers and
included in prop-50 the explicit requirement for a public record of
such
transactions: "The following transfer details will be published by
APNIC
in a public log of resource transfers: - Source - Recipient - Address
resources - Date of transfer"
My guess is that it would pretty much meet the needs of what's being
requested at the bottom line. I presume it includes all records of
transfers and not just the previous holder?
yes, you are correct in that assumption.
That was strongly emphasised
as needs from operators in Japan.
(I did get a feedback that it would be nice to have a whowas
equivalent
but I don't think people will be too picky about the format)
That is outside the scope of prop-50, of course. Prop-50 is limited in
scope to the transfer function.
Whether the precise details are appropriate or not is perhaps a
matter
for further thought, but the general need to understand the previous
circumstances of the parties to a transfer in terms of past transfers
where they were a party, and the previous movement of the address
resources in question, is often helpful in understanding whether the
proposed transfer should be regarded with appropriate confidence or
not.
Its not all the information one may need, but it appears that it
would
be generally helpful information, or at least that what I had thought
would be useful in terms of registry-published information in such an
environment.
yes, that's the basic idea.
These information would help in being aware of the risks/the work it
takes when obtaining space.
A simple text log may be okay to start with, which I imagine wouldn't
add too much burden on the secretariat.
I am not speaking for the secretariat here, but in terms of policy
language I would've assumed that the language in prop-50 provides
sufficient guidance to the secretariat to implement the requested
functionality.
regards,
Geoff
