Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
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@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
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:
- 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@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
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:
- 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@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
-- Terry Manderson email: terry@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
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@apnic.net To: Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp CC: sig-nir@lists.apnic.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:
- 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@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
-- Terry Manderson email: terry@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Okay. I'll leave that for Terry to respond, but how do other NIRs feel about the suggested change?
izumi
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@apnic.net To: Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp CC: sig-nir@lists.apnic.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:
- 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@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
-- Terry Manderson email: terry@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
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@apnic.net To: Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp CC: sig-nir@lists.apnic.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:
- 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@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
-- Terry Manderson email: terry@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Are there any further comments on this?
George M. will be presenting the proposal on behalf of Sanjaya and Myself tomorrow, and I would like to update the slides as necessary.
Cheers Terry
On 22/02/2008, at 9:38 PM, Sanjaya wrote:
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@apnic.net To: Izumi Okutani izumi@nic.ad.jp CC: sig-nir@lists.apnic.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:
- 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@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
-- Terry Manderson email: terry@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
-- Terry Manderson email: terry@apnic.net Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-054: NIR operational policy document revision -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear colleagues
This is the final call for comments on policy proposal prop-054, 'NIR operational policy document revision'.
This proposal was presented at APNIC 25 and was accepted by consensus.
The APNIC Secretariat will provide further details in the near future that address concerns about ensuring that a documented history of reverse DNS delegation methods can be tracked.
The APNIC Secretariat and NIRs have agreed to discuss comfortable time frames for the NIRs to implement any new reverse DNS delegation methods on a case-by-case basis before new methods are adopted by APNIC and the NIRs.
The proposal has been submitted to the NIR SIG mailing list for an eight-week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus appears to have been achieved, the NIR SIG Chair will ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
* Send all comments and questions to: sig-nir@apnic.net * Deadline for comments: 29 April 2008
Proposal details ----------------
It is proposed that:
1. Section 3.4 of APNIC-103-v001 be updated to include a reference to reverse DNS delegations in ip6.arpa.
2. The two processes for delegating reverse zones specified in section 3.4 of APNIC-103-v001 be replaced with the following two processes:
1. Automated
Reverse DNS zones may be managed using the currently supported automated process documented at:
Reverse DNS delegations resource guide http://www.apnic.net/services/dns_guide.html
2. Manual
Reverse DNS delegations may be managed using MyAPNIC.
3. "Appendix: Details of flat file view of a zone" be removed from APNIC-103-v001 as it is no longer needed.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, presentations, links to relevant meeting archives and links to mailing list discussions are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-054-v001.html
Best Regards, Izumi Okutani, David Chen, Billy Cheon
Izumi-san,
This is Hiroki from JPNIC. I have a question about proposal point 2.
Proposal details
It is proposed that:
Section 3.4 of APNIC-103-v001 be updated to include a reference to reverse DNS delegations in ip6.arpa.
The two processes for delegating reverse zones specified in section 3.4 of APNIC-103-v001 be replaced with the following two processes:
Automated
Reverse DNS zones may be managed using the currently supported automated process documented at:
Reverse DNS delegations resource guide http://www.apnic.net/services/dns_guide.htmlManual
Reverse DNS delegations may be managed using MyAPNIC.
Would updates by e-mail continue to be available?
We were just wondering as we currently make updates by e-mail for ERX resources.
If you plan to abolish it in the future, we would like to request for some testing period (e.g. for 3 months) to see if MyAPNIC update will work smoothly without problems before abolishing e-mail update.
Would this be consistent with what APNIC has in mind? I am looking forward to hear any comments/feedbacks.
Thanks, Hiroki
--- Hiroki Kawabata Hostmaster, IP Department Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
Hiroki Kawabata wrote:
Would updates by e-mail continue to be available?
We were just wondering as we currently make updates by e-mail for ERX resources.
Hiroki-san,
E-mail updates will continue to be available as it is not affected by this particular policy document.
Having said that, you might want to consider migrating to the new REST/XML interface to update both ERX and non-ERX data as you will get many benefits in doing that.
If you plan to abolish it in the future, we would like to request for some testing period (e.g. for 3 months) to see if MyAPNIC update will work smoothly without problems before abolishing e-mail update.
APNIC secretariat will communicate well in advance and provide enough testing time should there be plans to deprecate any of the APNIC registry data update mechanisms.
Please contact helpdesk@apnic.net immediately should you have any problem updating data through MyAPNIC.
I hope this answers your question. Please let us know if you need more clarifications. Thank you!
Cheers,
Hi Sanjaya,
Thank you for the clarification. It is nice to confirm that e-mail update continues to be available.
We agree there are benefits in update through REST/XML interface for ERX too. It may take some time to implement it in our system, but we would like to consider it in the future.
Thanks, Hiroki
--- Hiroki Kawabata Hostmaster, IP Department Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Call for comments on prop-054: NIR operational policy document revision From: Sanjaya sanjaya@apnic.net Date: Fri Mar 07 2008 13:54:15 GMT+0900
Hiroki Kawabata wrote:
Would updates by e-mail continue to be available?
We were just wondering as we currently make updates by e-mail for ERX resources.
Hiroki-san,
E-mail updates will continue to be available as it is not affected by this particular policy document.
Having said that, you might want to consider migrating to the new REST/XML interface to update both ERX and non-ERX data as you will get many benefits in doing that.
If you plan to abolish it in the future, we would like to request for some testing period (e.g. for 3 months) to see if MyAPNIC update will work smoothly without problems before abolishing e-mail update.
APNIC secretariat will communicate well in advance and provide enough testing time should there be plans to deprecate any of the APNIC registry data update mechanisms.
Please contact helpdesk@apnic.net immediately should you have any problem updating data through MyAPNIC.
I hope this answers your question. Please let us know if you need more clarifications. Thank you!
Cheers,
Izumi and Terry,
Do you have further comments on Terry's response, Shin?
I have an additional comment:
The web page:
http://www.apnic.net/services/dns_guide.html
and a web page pointed from the page if the latter page contains the information about the technical details (equivalent of the section 3.4 in APNIC-103-v001) should be managed by documentation process (APNIC-083).
In other words, the web page should be managed in the same way as policy documents. Therefore, I expect updating history will be displayed on the top of the web page(s).
Best, Shin
Hi Shin,
APNIC-083 has been obsoleted by APNIC-112. Are you suggesting that http://www.apnic.net/services/dns_guide.html becomes a policy document that is controlled by APNIC-112?
Cheers, Sanjaya
Shin Yamasaki wrote:
Izumi and Terry,
Do you have further comments on Terry's response, Shin?
I have an additional comment:
The web page:
http://www.apnic.net/services/dns_guide.htmland a web page pointed from the page if the latter page contains the information about the technical details (equivalent of the section 3.4 in APNIC-103-v001) should be managed by documentation process (APNIC-083).
In other words, the web page should be managed in the same way as policy documents. Therefore, I expect updating history will be displayed on the top of the web page(s).
Best, Shin
Sanjaya,
Since the web page for APNIC-083 says the document is active, I seemed to use incorrect one.
Yes. I suggest the page or a page which has the actual information for the section 3.4. linked from the page should be controlled by APNIC-112.
Shin
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [sig-nir] prop-054: NIR operational policy document revision From: Sanjaya sanjaya@apnic.net To: sig-nir@lists.apnic.net Date: Fri Feb 22 2008 17:33:05 GMT+0900
Hi Shin,
APNIC-083 has been obsoleted by APNIC-112. Are you suggesting that http://www.apnic.net/services/dns_guide.html becomes a policy document that is controlled by APNIC-112?
Cheers, Sanjaya
Shin Yamasaki wrote:
Izumi and Terry,
Do you have further comments on Terry's response, Shin?
I have an additional comment:
The web page:
http://www.apnic.net/services/dns_guide.htmland a web page pointed from the page if the latter page contains the information about the technical details (equivalent of the section 3.4 in APNIC-103-v001) should be managed by documentation process (APNIC-083).
In other words, the web page should be managed in the same way as policy documents. Therefore, I expect updating history will be displayed on the top of the web page(s).
Best, Shin
Thanks for the clarification, Shin. I have asked our documentation team to look at the APNIC-083 status and correct as needed.
Cheers, Sanjaya
Shin Yamasaki wrote:
Sanjaya,
Since the web page for APNIC-083 says the document is active, I seemed to use incorrect one.
Yes. I suggest the page or a page which has the actual information for the section 3.4. linked from the page should be controlled by APNIC-112.
Shin
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [sig-nir] prop-054: NIR operational policy document revision From: Sanjaya sanjaya@apnic.net To: sig-nir@lists.apnic.net Date: Fri Feb 22 2008 17:33:05 GMT+0900
Hi Shin,
APNIC-083 has been obsoleted by APNIC-112. Are you suggesting that http://www.apnic.net/services/dns_guide.html becomes a policy document that is controlled by APNIC-112?
Cheers, Sanjaya
Shin Yamasaki wrote:
Izumi and Terry,
Do you have further comments on Terry's response, Shin?
I have an additional comment:
The web page:
http://www.apnic.net/services/dns_guide.htmland a web page pointed from the page if the latter page contains the information about the technical details (equivalent of the section 3.4 in APNIC-103-v001) should be managed by documentation process (APNIC-083).
In other words, the web page should be managed in the same way as policy documents. Therefore, I expect updating history will be displayed on the top of the web page(s).
Best, Shin
Activity Summary
- 5676 days inactive
- 5676 days old
- sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
- 5 participants
- 14 comments