1. 2002/9/3 Ruri Hiromi (JPNIC IP Committee/Intec NetCore, Inc.)
- Report of a panel in JPNIC Open Policy Meeting -
2002/9/3
Ruri Hiromi
(JPNIC IP Committee/Intec NetCore, Inc.)
Good afternoon, my name is Ruri Hiromi from JPNIC IP committee.
Today I will give you a report about a panel discussion we had at JPNIC Open Policy Meeting last July.
Then I introduce my consideration and some comments we had at that meeting.

2. JPNIC Open Policy Meeting
Attendee 79
117 84
Time
2.5H
6.5H
A number of proposals & topics
4proposals
Proposal for new IPv6 policy
APNIC OPM report
Introduction of JPNIC’s evolution procedure, etc.
9proposals
ASN assignment Policy
Proposed criteria for initial allocation of IPv4
Status report of new IPv6 address policy, etc.
7proposals
Consideration of the disclosed information about ASN
JPNIC’s registration procedures
IPｖ６ panel
RFC2050 panel
First of all, I will talk about RFC2050 panel discussion shortly.
The 2nd JPNIC Open Policy Meeting was held on 9th July with almost 100 attendees.
Most of all attendees are ISP or academic network operators who subscribe IP-USERS mailing list, which is hosted by JPNIC.
The meeting was one day session and it had 7 programs. This panel discussion is one of them.
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.

3. Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.
RFC2050 panel discussion
details of the panel discussion…
Panel Chair
Takashi Arano
Panelists/Presentation
Akinori Maemura, History of RFC2050
Yoshiyuki Ezura, Review of RFC2050
Ruri Hiromi, Status report of RFC2050-WG
The panel chair is Mr. Takashi Arano and the panelists are 3 persons, Mr. Akinori Maemura, Yoshiyuki Ezura and me.
Maemura-san gave a presentation about the history of making RFC2050. He showed the whole history of
developing RFC2050 from RFC1466bis and noticed us how it could be hard to share opinions with users all over the world.
Ezura-san reviewed RFC2050. He explained how the Internet situation has been changed since 1996 and
listed up some points that should be updated.
Then I introduced the activities of RFC2050-WG led by Mark Mcffaden.
We had some comments from attendees.
Some said “ it is appropriate for make it to be obsolete status”,
and some said that “it is not suitable for technical document, it should be for the registries” and so on.
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.

4. Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.
RFC2050-WG
RFC2050-WG
Mark McFadden drives to revise RFC2050(2001/9～)
charter/requiarment/10principles/8 parts of document series has been proposed
recent status : Calls for volunteer drafters
This is a brief introduction of 2050-wg.
How many people here do not know about this working group?
please raise your hands who do not know it?
(挙手が多かったら説明する）
The chair of this group is Mark McFadden from CIX.
He had already explained this activities in every regular RIR meetings.
So that it can be said that this working group is under endorsement of registries.
He proposed 8 parts of document series.
For further details, I show it’s URL. Please access this page if you want to need.
At the recent status, volunteer drafters are called for and a few persons applied.
Unfortunately the mailing list is not so active and we can’t know the progress on this drafting.
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.

5. Proposed Document series by 2050-WG
whole replacement of RFC2050
sub titled – “ADDRESSING POLICY AND RIR FRAMEWORK”
Table of contents
IP-ADDRdoc 1: INSTRUCTIONS TO EDITORS AND AUTHORS OF IP-ADDRdocs
IP-ADDRdoc 2:A GUIDE To ADDRESSING POLICY, ALLOCATION, AND PRINCIPLES
IP-ADDRdoc 3: THE PRINCIPLES OF IP ADDRESS ALLOCATION FOR IPv4
IP-ADDRdoc 4: THE PRINCIPLES OF IP ADDRESS ALLOCATION FOR IPv6
IP-ADDRdoc 5: THE PRINCIPLES OF AS NUMBER ASSIGNMENT
IP-ADDRdoc 6: CRITERIA GUIDELINES FOR IPv4 ADDRESS ALLOCATION
IP-ADDRdoc 7: REVERSE MAPPING SERVICES FOR IPv4
IP-ADDRdoc 8: ADDRESSING AND NUMBERING ORGANIZATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS
This is the table of contents of their proposal document series.
That is divided into 8 parts. please look at the handouts for details.
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.

6. Policy Document Situation
1996
2002
RFC2050（as reference & global one policy)
RFC1466
one global doc?
replaced?
RIPE/NCC policy docs,
APNIC policy docs,
ARIN policy docs
Here I try to visualize the current document situation.
Back in 1996, RFC1466 was set in the obsolete status by RFC2050.
RFC2050 was the first common documents written by registries. It was also approved by IETF community.
Since then it has been the basic guidelines of allocation and assignments for the registries.
They spent a hard time in the process of developing RFC2050.
On the other hand, each RIR have developed their own policy documents.
Their documents are not only based on RFC2050, but have additional local rules.
The local rules usually were gathered in the open registries’ meetings such as APNIC Open Policy Meeting.
From this point of view, the registries documents are well developed.
Now their regional members or customers are following their own registries policy documents.
In every decision in open policy meetings, local rules in other region are always introduced and considered.
In this way, it would be possibly said that 3 different policy documents are coordinated.
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.

7. Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.
MY BASIC QUESTION
Who still refer to RFC2050 now?
RIR for their daily operation?
LIR for their address requests?
Do we need RFC2050 to be replaced?
As an RFC?
As an unique global guideline?
whole or partial?
Based on my observation of this situation, 2 questions come up.
The one question is “who still refer RFC2050 now?”
Then the next, “Do we need RFC2050 to be replaced?”
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.

8. Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Who still refer to RFC2050?
Who refer to RFC2050?
it is too old for current operation.
we already have appropriate documents by RIRs.
No one !?
Who still refer to RFC2050?
It is too old for today’s operation and each regional registries has their own valid documents.
So I guess nobody refers RFC2050 for the application to the registries.
Although RIR policy documents refer to RFC2050, they are all self-sufficient now.
I mean, if we do not have RFC2050, no one would be in trouble.
therefore, RFC2050 could be an obsolete document in practice.
however it might be better to have any kind of document for any registries to keep the global order for IP management
even RFC2050 is made in obsolete.
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.

9. Whole replacement? Do we need RFC2050 to be replaced? Replace it as…
RIR Reference?
One Global document?
For keep fairness across the regions.
・too hard to replace whole idea
・2050WG isn’t reasonable?
・each RIR document is self sufficient
Let’s consider how we replace the RFC2050.
Do we need RFC2050 to be whole replaced?
RFC2050 might have 2 functions.
One is as the RIRs’ reference. The other is as the one global document.
As for the RIRs’ deference, I already said, there are valid regional registries documents.
so the only question remaining is whether RIRs would like to have a reference or not?
But it seems to me that RIRs don’t need it.
How about the one global policy?
The community might require a global reference for the fairness across the regions.
For example some global multinational companies might seek one global policy for their consistent operation.
we need to verify the demand on one global policy.
Then in case we need replace RFC2050 with any sort of global document, it will be hard to be replace whole document
because its quantity.
So that I think more discussions and deep considerations are necessary on what the WG planning to do.
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.

10. Input from JP discussion
Make RFC2050 in obsolete status
Consider purpose and value of coming document
Clarify which aspect of RFC2050 necessary
Finally I would like to give 3 points.
First of all, making RFC2050 in obsolete status.
The second is, the WG are need to reconsider purpose and value of the coming document.
Then WG needs to clarify which part of RFC2050 necessary to contain and revise for new document if the document itself necessary to exist for our global reference.
Seems to me, the section 1,3 and 8 of the mcffadfen’s list are the minimum set to be included.
The comparison of the RIRs documents might help to clarify the common parts as a global reference.
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.

11. Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Next Step
We continue discussing about this issue,
and try to give input to WG
Last of all, here I input you my proposals.
If I will get further comments or some achieved consensus at this meeting, I will summit a report to the RFC2050-wg.
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.

12. Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Thank you.
2002/9/3
Copyright(c)2002,Ruri Hiromi,IntecNetCore Inc., All Rights Reserved.