[arin-ppml] Revisit RPKI TAL Relying Party Agreement?

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri Feb 3 15:06:08 EST 2017

On 3 Feb 2017, at 2:46 PM, Richard J. Letts <rjletts at uw.edu> wrote:
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:29 AM
> ...
>> Exactly. You refuse to provide new services related to legacy resource
>> holdings, including RPKI. While not unreasonable in the context of ARIN
>> operations, this is harmful to the RPKI efforts. This is something no
>> organization prioritizing RPKI would do. Since offering new services like RPKI
>> to legacy registrants* appears inimical to ARIN's core mission I respectfully
>> question whether ARIN can be a satisfactory steward for RPKI.
> RIPE's Policy is:
> The resource certificate is linked to RIPE NCC registration. This is because only for as long as you are a RIPE NCC member and *have a contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC* can it be authoritatively stated who the holder of a certain Internet number resource is. 
> [Emphasis mine]
> It doesn't seem to that different from what I understand ARIN's policy is.

Richard - 
   RIPE’s handling of legacy resource holders is different from ARIN’s,
   in that ARIN requires that legacy resource holders wishing to receive
   additional services sign the RSA and pay legacy maintenance fees. 
   Because the RSA delineates specific rights of the resource holder 
   (and includes a disclaimer of other rights that some might wish to
   assert), ARIN’s requirement to enter into such an agreement to 
   provide RPKI services likely precludes some parties from RPKI 
   deployment: specifically those parties that value indeterminate 
   perceived rights as more important than participating in RPKI. 

I hope this helps clarify the issue somewhat (and Bill - if I’ve 
mischaracterized the situation, please feel free to elaborate)


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list