[arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Sat Apr 27 05:20:38 EDT 2019


Hi Owen, 

 

El 27/4/19 9:40, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> escribió:

 

My text below is my own thoughts and not any official position from ARIN or the AC...



On Apr 27, 2019, at 00:23 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:

 

Hi Owen,

El 27/4/19 9:00, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> escribió:

   Speaking only as a member of the community and based only on my understanding of the PDP from reading it on the ARIN web site. If ARIN staff, the board, or the chair of the AC have a differing opinion, my words below should be considered in err.

   Close… You are absolutely correct that the petition is not about the proposal’s merits (or lack thereof).

   In this case, the petition is actually to request that the ARIN Board review the AC decision. If the ARIN board reverses the AC decision that the proposal is out of scope, I believe it goes onto the AC Docket as a draft policy, though I’m not 100% sure whether it then remains under the editorial control of the authors (as would be the case for a petition against abandonment or delay) or whether it goes under the editorial control of the AC as is the case with a draft policy that didn’t become a draft through the petition process.

Authors already have a new version ready (being published in RIPE in a matter of hours/days), so it will be the logic thing, that if the petition is accepted, we can update it. I think this is in the scope of the PDP.

 

I believe you can update it now and ask that the new version be reconsidered if you believe that your update brings it within scope. There’s a small chance that I’m wrong about that, but I don’t think so. As I’ve told you several times now, the AC decision does not preclude discussion of the matter. It merely prevents the proposal from advancing to draft policy status until something changes to bring it into scope or until a petition of that decision succeeds.

 

I’ve considered that, but I rather prefer to avoid starting a new petition process for every new version and have it correctly handled within the PDP.

 

You’re right that we can still “somehow” discuss about it (it will be a discussion about an hypothetical proposal, not a formal one), but the authors goal is to get thru the PDP and hopefully get a text that reach consensus.


   To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time this particular type of petition has been exercised.

   It is possible that the board will uphold the AC decision, in which case, I believe that’s the end of the process and the proposal remains off the docket.

   This is documented in section 3.2.1 of the PDP available at https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/#2-valid-petitions

Having read that several times (and it is not a very clear process, and have clear failures, such as 5 natural days for the petition, including weekend, bank holidays, etc. ... in this case also the 1st of those days was national holiday for one of the authors, and the last day is holiday in many countries), and to be honest, as already said, I don't link this process vs other RIRs PDPs (which of course aren't perfect, but at least they are not being a "representative" system for the community). 

 

You are welcome to address your issues with our PDP through the ACSP and/or by contacting the board. The PDP itself is not within the purview of the PDP or the Advisory Council, so I cannot help you here.

 

One more surprising aspect that differs from the other RIRs. I will expect that the community can really amend the PDP as part of the PDP itself. I’ve used already once the ACSP to suggest that the submission system of all the 5 RIRs is somehow unified in terms of looking for the good things of each one and having the same language/terminology (https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/acsp/suggestions/2018-5.html). The result of not having that unification is that even the RIRs itself and the NRO have confusions about the comparisons among the policies (https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/rir-comparative-policy-overview/). I was a frequent user of this, until I realized that there are many mistakes. I think last time a year ago or so, I was trying to compare the IPv6 PI multihoming requirements, and they were wrong (and not because policies changed so not simply outdated).

 

The result: It was sent to the AC, and the minutes (https://www.arin.net/vault/about_us/ac/ac2018_0418.html), reflect that it was incorrectly understood as a request to change/aligns the PDPs, which was not. Again, I was suggesting to adopt same terminology. All the PDPs already ask the same: proposal summary, problem statement, policy text, other information, references. But using different wording. Each RIR submission system have good and bad things. Let’s take the good ones from all them, and make it look as closer as possible. Not at all related to the PDP.

 

I would have expected, at least, be asked to either explain better what I’m proposing (despite I believe my email on that was very clear), or even may be participate in that meeting just to present my view and experience. Email sometimes is not sufficient. I’m not even sure even if I got notified about those minutes (I may have got it, but honestly, I don’t recall and I’ve not been able right now to find any email on that). I discovered those minutes recently just by chance.

 

Note that I personally don’t really care too much is a bit of extra work when you submit the same (or equivalent) proposal to several RIRs (which happens quite often), but it will be very helpful for the community when comparing policies for whatever reason, even for the RIRs staff when presenting them *at every RIR meeting*. So, I can’t buy that the workload to unify that is higher than the workload caused by those differences in a single year of the RIRs. Time is money, here is time for RIRs staff and *all* the community. Most of the things that I’ve asked for are already done, and I’m sure the RIRs “share” a lot of development efforts from their processes, so there is no need to replicate those efforts 5 times (and as said most of it is done in one or the other RIR, is all open source, etc., etc.). After all, that’s why we have the NRO (in part).

 

I don’t think that the 5 natural day limit for filing a petition is at all unreasonable. All that is required is a simple email indicating that you wish to initiate a petition. Really, even if a couple of the 5 days are taken up as holidays, is it unreasonable to expect you to send a short email within 3 days? I think not. It’s also worth noting that the 5 day clock does not start ticking until the publication of the draft minutes. Often the meeting report is published prior to the draft minutes by several days, so authors usually have more than 5 days notice to actually submit the petition.

 

I can’t only start the petition once I’ve agreed with my co-author to do so and this can only happen once the draft minutes have been published. I try to read and respond emails 7 days a week, 365 days per year, at least during 16-18 hours per day, but not everybody does so, especially in case of a national holiday or weekend. In this case we have a weekend and 2 holidays. It is just unfortunate, and I fully agree with you that responding a short email to say “I support the petition” is not an issue, but the process (despite this specific case), will be highly improved if you use 5 (or even 7) working days, as you need to consider also that the PDPs are for the *global* community participation, not just each RIR territory (and holidays aren’t the same).

 

Could you point to what you think is unclear? IMHO, there are some unclear outcomes (e.g. who gets editorial control after the board reverses an AC decision of out-of-scope? Does the board’s reversal of the AC decision result in direct to draft policy status, or, does the AC then still have to act to move it to draft?), but the petition process itself seems quite clear to me.

 

All that you mention above, especially if authors can still send a new version and not have to start another petition process …

 

                1.            Send a notice to PPML within 5 days of the publication of the draft minutes announcing the action being petitioned.

                2.            Gather supporting comments from the required number of other parties over the next 5 days.

                3.            Staff publishes a decision about whether the petition succeeded or not.

 

When I was reading the process a few days ago, I was hoping that the 5 days are only to start the petition process. It was not clear to me that the 5 days include the timing for the people to respond to it. I will have expected a longer period here. Again, for me *personally* is sufficient, but not everybody reads the lists emails in just 5 days, so I still believe that *for the community* 5 natural days is really a too short time, even if 10 support expressions look like something easily achievable (but not really if you, despite the “size” of the community, check the mailing list archives for different frequent contributors).

 

The process doesn’t state if the 5 days are “natural” or “working” days, etc.

 

It is not clearly spelled if “authors” count for the 10 petitions (I will expect so, as we are also part of the community).

 

 

Clearly the process was not so difficult to understand as to prevent you from successfully engaging it.

 

Note that I’m speaking in general about the process, not about this specific petition or my own circumstances as an author (despite the example of the holidays in this case).

 

Owen

 






**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190427/f801e654/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list