Summary

  • Remco van Mook’s RIPE 93 proposal begins with an index that points to existing policy documents; it does not begin by rewriting them.
  • The transcript shows why the next step is harder: relocating text, correcting inconsistencies and changing policy are different jobs, and the old wording already has a history of application.

An address-policy manual sounds like a filing project. Put the rules in one place, give each topic a chapter, and let operators stop hunting through a stack of numbered documents. The RIPE 93 discussion showed why that neat plan needs a bright line before anyone moves a paragraph.

Remco van Mook proposed starting with an index that points to the current texts. It would group material by subject, from IPv4 and IPv6 to transfers, contractual relations and registry-adjacent rules. The official session abstract then describes a later step: move chapters one at a time, verbatim, starting with the already-consolidated transfer policy. One chapter, one proposal.

The transcript makes the sequence more cautious than the phrase “manual” suggests. Van Mook described the first framework as references only: no policy text moved. He also argued against clarifications at that stage. A note beside a reference can quietly settle a conflict; a corrected sentence can look like housekeeping while changing what operators think a rule requires.

That danger is not hypothetical in the room’s discussion. Participants pointed to inconsistent definitions across policies and to precedent created by years of applying the existing wording. Maynard Koch warned that even republishing text outside the policy-development process could alter how that precedent is understood. A Database Working Group co-chair drew the cleanest boundary: collation and correction must be separate, and conflicts should be exposed rather than blended away.

RIPE Document 781 gives that boundary a procedural home. It describes policy development as open, transparent and based on consensus, and says policies are documented in RIPE Documents. Van Mook said that once policy is touched, the Policy Development Process should apply. The index can therefore make the policy stack easier to inspect; it cannot resolve a disputed definition by editorial fiat.

There is a practical payoff if the first step stays modest. A newcomer can find the governing text and its history without already knowing which veteran to ask. The RIPE NCC can point to a more legible map instead of interpreting a pile of cross-references from memory. But a tidy index that hides conflicts would only give an old ambiguity a cleaner cover.

The RIPE 93 transcript records support, volunteers and objections, but no chair decision adopting the manual or a later work item. A published Address Policy Working Group action or chair summary would change that status. Until then, this is a proposal with a useful test: can RIPE publish the map while keeping every change of meaning inside the consensus process?

Sources