Hi Louie, Nurani, all,Thank you for sharing the draft report!I have a couple of comments in regard to section 4 (i.e. Conclusion):- “Three IPv6 allocations were made – one during March to RIPE NCC, one during May to RIPE NCC, and one during November to ARIN.”I don’t know if it makes much difference but, for clarity, the second IPv6 allocation to the RIPE NCC was requested in May but made (implemented) in June.- "One ASN allocation was made – during June to RIPE NCC.”That should be APNIC instead of RIPE NCC.@Nurani, in regard to this particular /22 IPv6 allocation made in March, I’d like to provide some clarification.If this was an allocation by IANA to the RIPE NCC, I would assume it would be part of that SLA. I am not familiar with the particular allocation. Is there a reason it is not in the IANA report?Could I ask the RIPE NCC representatives Nikolas (and Felipe) staff to clarify this and to determine whether or not it should be included in the RIR Matrix (and consequently therefore also included in the IANA RC report)?2001:3c00::/22 was reserved for the RIPE NCC in 2004, prior to the current IPv6 global policy, for possible future allocation. We requested this specific prefix because it completes a block previously allocated to the RIPE NCC.The NRO had made public the communication with IANA on this matter:Our public news item is available at:On the IANA page for "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments” this allocation has been merged into 2001:2000::/19 with the note:"2001:2000::/20, 2001:3000::/21, and 2001:3800::/22 were allocated on 2004-05-04. The more recent allocation (2019-03-12) incorporates all these previous allocations”For transparency, I believe it should be included in the RIR Matrix and the IANA RC report.Please let me know if something is unclear.Cheers,NikolasOn 5 Feb 2020, at 20:01, Louie Lee <louie@louie.net> wrote:Hi,Please find attached the latest draft (version 0.4) of our 12-page 2019 report. The Google Doc version is also available:Along with some minor formatting changes, these are the non-minor changes that were made:
- Updated possible date of publication from "5 March" to "7 March" as suggested by Nurani.
- Tweaked the Background paragraphs in the Introduction to be just a tad more readable.
- Replaced parentheses with quotation marks for all defined terms as suggested by Martin. Replaced instances of "Review Committee" with "RC" in all instances except for where we are citing the charter.
- Updated the Conclusion and RIR summarising statement to include the IPv6 unicast request to RIPE NCC in March.
- Updated links for the matrix, the community input page, and the NRO announcement.
- Updated Section 3.3.2 and Appendix 2 for the one comment already received! PII has been redacted.
Can the RIR staff members on the RC please confirm that the summarising statement reflects what the RIRs would like to say here. (I forget if that was already done this year.)We still need to update the links to the archived announcement emails being sent on the individual RIR lists about the public comment period. Please forward me the links when they are available. (Nurani, I failed to find the online posting of your email on a RIPE list.)Unless there are some major changes to the draft, the next one to be sent out will be when the public comment period closes. In the meantime, please check the Google Doc version for minor changes and additions with more public comments.Thanks,LouieOn Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:45 PM Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:_______________________________________________Hi,Thank you for this Ernesto. This is indeed a correct assessment and it does reflect our mandate in this committee. Any services outside of the SLA between IANA/PTI and the RIRs are also outside the scope for this group.If this was an allocation by IANA to the RIPE NCC, I would assume it would be part of that SLA. I am not familiar with the particular allocation. Is there a reason it is not in the IANA report?Could I ask the RIPE NCC representatives Nikolas (and Felipe) staff to clarify this and to determine whether or not it should be included in the RIR Matrix (and consequently therefore also included in the IANA RC report)?Thank you.Kind regards,Nurani
On 29 Jan 2020, at 17:32, Ernesto Majó <ernesto@lacnic.net> wrote:Is this interaction part of the SLA or not? I think this is the key point to agree.
If this interaction is covered by the SLA, then we must include it in the RC report (even though IANA didn´t include in its reports).
If not, then we do not have to include it.
El 28/1/20 a las 17:59, John Sweeting escribió:
_______________________________________________I think this is fine but am wondering if we are going to mention the fact of the IPv6 /22 allocation made to RIPE on 3/12/2019?
From: <rc-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of Louie Lee <louie@louie.net>
Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 8:48 AM
To: IANA Numbering Services Review Committee <rc@nro.net>
Subject: Re: [IANA-RC] DRAFT: 2019 IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Report
Friends,
Due to a number of changes that were made today, attached is draft version 0.3 for your review.
In this draft, I've added links to the "More info" buttons on the 2018 matrix to point to the IANA pages where the graphics were taken from. (Recall that the matrix as originally posted does not contain these links.) We can add links this way in the future if needed.
Louie
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:03 AM Louie Lee <louie@louie.net> wrote:
And after fixing the grammatical errors:
The Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff have reviewed the IANA performance reports for 2019 and confirm that the Service Level Agreements (SLA) were met 100% of the time in all cases. It is noted that the IPv4 unicast request in March was an automatic allocation made to the RIRs in accordance with the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. This allocation was executed as expected with no issues to note. The two IPv6 unicast requests and the one AS number request submitted during the months of May, June, and November fully met the expectations of the RIRs and were executed within the agreed to terms of our SLA with no issues to note. The RIRs recognize the flawless execution of IANA services in 2019.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:54 AM Louie Lee <louie@louie.net> wrote:
And to make this suggested paragraph read just a little better, I added "one" before "AS number request":
The Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff have reviewed the IANA performance reports for 2019 and confirm that the Service Level Agreements (SLA) were met 100% of the time in all cases. It is noted that the IPv4 unicast request in March was automatic allocations made to the RIRs in accordance with the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. These allocation was executed as expected with no issues to note. The two IPv6 unicast requests and the one AS number request submitted during the months of May, June, and November fully met the expectations of the RIRs and were executed within the agreed to terms of our SLA with no issues to note. The RIRs recognize the flawless execution of IANA services in 2019.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:28 AM Louie Lee <louie@louie.net> wrote:
Thanks for catching that, Juan, and the update to the date, Nurani.
I've updated the suggested RIR summarising statement paragraph with the details of the 2019 number requests:
The Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff have reviewed the IANA performance reports for 2019 and confirm that the Service Level Agreements (SLA) were met 100% of the time in all cases. It is noted that the IPv4 unicast request in March was automatic allocations made to the RIRs in accordance with the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. These allocation was executed as expected with no issues to note. The two IPv6 unicast requests and the AS number request submitted during the months of May, June, and November fully met the expectations of the RIRs and were executed within the agreed to terms of our SLA with no issues to note. The RIRs recognize the flawless execution of IANA services in 2019.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 2:42 AM Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
Hi Juan,
Indeed. I will correct this in Louie’s draft.
Thanks,
Nurani
On 22 Jan 2020, at 10:07, Juan Alejo Peirano <juan.alejo.peirano@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Quick question for clarification: Section 3.3 (datasets, matrix, etc) are from 2018, but conclusions are from 2019. Is that correct?
Thanks!
Juan
El mié., 22 ene. 2020 a las 7:40, Louie Lee (<louie@louie.net>) escribió:
I already found an error that I had made:
- Two IPv6 allocations were made – one during May to RIPE NCC and one during November to ARIN.
Updated PDF attached.
Louie
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:26 PM Louie Lee <louie@louie.net> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 3:32 PM German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
• New Action Item 191127-2: LL to circulate the first draft of the IANA RC report before the January teleconference (date TBD).
Dear members of the Review Committee,
Please review the attached the DRAFT 2019 IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Report. Of course, it will be updated again when the RIR review matrix is published and announced on the various mailing lists.
Along with updating the references from 2018 to 2019, these are the more substantial updates I've made since the last report:
Section 2.4 Current members of the Review Committee
Section 4. Conclusion
The Review Committee evaluated the Data sets in Section 3 and observed that:
- One IPv4 automatic allocations were made to all RIRs – during March – in accordance with the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA.
- Two IPv6 allocations were made – one during March to RIPE NCC and one during November to ARIN.
- One ASN allocation was made – during June to RIPE NCC.
And in order to streamline the report, I've moved the links to the RIR announcements for the 30 day comment period on the matrix from section 3.2 to appendix 2. (If interested, the 2018 report can be reviewed for comparison.)
And if anyone would like to suggest changes or comment directly to the draft, you may do so on the Google docs version.
Louie
_______________________________________________
Rc mailing list
Rc@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
--
Juan Alejo Peirano
_______________________________________________
Rc mailing list
Rc@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Rc mailing list
Rc@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Rc mailing list
Rc@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
<2019 IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Report - v0.4.pdf>_______________________________________________