Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region

AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The author introduces the anycast proposal as a strawman and invites feedback. This establishes advocacy of a discussion starting point, not endorsement of every subsequent version or a sequence of positions on this particular proposal.

Conditions: The retained message does not reproduce the substantive proposed anycast terms.

Apr 17, 2012

It is somewhat of a "strawman" in that it gives us a starting point for discussion.

No Reverse Unless Assigned

Assessment: Consistent · The sequence begins with a tentative enforcement proposal, moves to revised wording with discretionary removal after notice, and ends with willingness to withdraw if the community rejects the approach. The stated registration objective persists. The end-user clarification explains that assignments already entered by staff satisfy the registration condition, although the broad draft wording could benefit from that explanation.

Conditions: The change to MAY is a real revision of the enforcement mechanism, not unchanged wording. · The /24 condition requires at least one registered assignment or sub-allocation, not registration of the entire /24. · The end-user explanation relies on the author's recollection of staff registration practice; it is not an independent verification of all end-user records. · The June message offers withdrawal conditionally and reports the author's perception of feedback; it does not prove actual withdrawal or absence of community views. · A draft identifier announcement is procedural and does not establish adoption.

Apr 17, 2012

I am hoping it will spur discussion and perhaps someone will have a better idea

Dec 5, 2012

I have used a "MAY" instead of a "SHALL" or a "MUST"

Dec 17, 2012

3.3 AfriNIC may remove reverse delegation of any LIRs allocation beginning 12 (twelve) months from the date of the reminder.

Dec 17, 2012

Since End-User assignments are already entered into the Db by the RIR staff (IIRC), then they can get reverse delegation if they so choose.

Jun 19, 2013

If there is no consensus that this is the way to rectify the problem of getting people to register their assignments, I would be happy to withdraw this proposal

Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region

Assessment: Consistent · Support for Alan's clarification and future-proofing is followed by an explicit favorable last-call response. No withdrawal of support is present, but the short final response does not independently establish whether every earlier suggestion entered the final text.

Conditions: The exact intervening drafts are not reproduced in these two messages. · A favorable response is the author's vote, not proof of community consensus or adoption.

Nov 28, 2014

I would support the change that Alan suggests in the interests of clarity.

Dec 7, 2014

in favor.

AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01 · Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The earlier anycast strawman and the later support for clarification are compatible in direction, but the first message contains no substantive terms. They cannot establish detailed consistency across all allocation conditions or revisions.

Conditions: Do not infer that submitting the initial strawman endorses every later anycast text.

Apr 17, 2012

Below is the proposal on Anycast I submitted to pdwg last week.

Nov 28, 2014

sure, I am all for future proofing as APB suggests.

No Reverse Unless Assigned · Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region

Assessment: Consistent · Revising No Reverse in response to concerns and accepting clarifying anycast wording both show willingness to refine proposals during discussion. Conditional withdrawal of an enforcement approach does not contradict support for a different resource-assignment proposal.

Conditions: This comparison concerns the stated handling of feedback, not identical substantive rules in the two policies.

Dec 17, 2012

Please find my revisions to the "No Reverse" proposal below, taking into account all of your concerns (I hope):

Nov 28, 2014

I would support the change that Alan suggests in the interests of clarity.