[Wg-rms] Recommendation

[Shin Yamasaki <yamasaki@nic.ad.jp>]

All,

It's time to prepare for APNIC 23, therefore please let me conclude this
working group.  The draft for the Policy SIG is as follows:

1. Recommendation

Resource Management System Working Group (WG) recommends the following:

Policy SIG should discuss the updated schedule in section 2 proposed by
APNIC secretariat with the considerations based on what were proposed by
the WG members in section 3.


2. Proposed and updated schedule from APNIC secretariat

(period
after
adoption)    (action)

-  6 months: Prototype available that accepts all objects via new method
(xml)
- 10 months: production system stop accepting domain objects
             via email and start accepting domain objects via new method
- 14 months: production system stop accepting inetnum, inet6num,
             autnum objects via email, and start accepting inetnum,
             inet6num, autnum objects via new method
- 18 months: production system stop accepting remaining RPSL objects
             via email and start accepting remaining RPSL object
             via new method

After posted this schedule, no comments has been raised from WG members.


3. Considerations

(Against APNIC secretariat's proposal)

  a. APNIC's proposal affects automated e-mail based in-house system in
some LIRs or NIRs.  Cost and resource impact for such organizations
would be significant.

  b. Developing secure e-mail should be considered.  The reasons are
backward compatibility for members using in-house e-mail based system
as well as security.

(For APNIC secretariat's proposal)

  c. APNIC secretariat needs to handle large amount of spam that has
impact to its operation.  In addition, APNIC has to keep unfiltered
incoming e-mail due to risk of losing e-mail.  As a result, the mail
robot is under high load and may cause delay of processing.  Deprecation
of e-mail solves this.

  d. E-mail registration feature is from RIPE whoisd-derived software.
Maintenance of the software code has significant impact to APNIC
secretariat.

  e. Cost for developing secure e-mail registration system would be
substantial.  Also, it requires to keep current RIPE whoisd-derived
software with modification.

  f. APNIC should consider prepare tools for migration or for backward
(e-mail) compatibility.


Comments and feedback are welcome.  Apologize for rush, but please
comment by the end of this week.

Regards,
Shin


-- 
Shin Yamasaki
Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)