Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
- To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
- From: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:02:20 +1100
- Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <499CBCE3.6050508 at nic dot ad dot jp>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <49954E5C.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <49995D7F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <49995ECE.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <499A4293.email@example.com> <9B3904ACB17450276F302E16@as-paul-l-568.local> <499A89F0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <6C99DD8C-875E-45F5-9D35-75F4BA485F40@apnic.net> <499CBCE3.email@example.com>
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 aclear "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 APNICin 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 equivalentbut 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 matterfor 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 theproposed transfer should be regarded with appropriate confidence or not. Its not all the information one may need, but it appears that it wouldbe 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.