[CRISP-TEAM] the initial draft announcement

Andrei Robachevsky robachevsky at isoc.org
Tue Dec 16 22:34:11 CET 2014

Izumi Okutani wrote on 16/12/14 22:23:
> Differences:
>     - RIPE community believes it is desirable to have a single SLA, and
>       not AoC
>     - Other communities propose AoC and SLA
>    Proposal:
>     - Exchange an agreement which can serve as SLA with the IANA
>       function operator
>     - While there will be no document called AoC, intended contents of
>       AoC will be reflected in the same agreement which covers SLA

I am not sure we discussed this in detail, but in my opinion the key
point here is whether we consider the relationship between the RIRs and
the IANA operator as customer - service provider, or peers. In the
former case a contract with SLAs seems more appropriate, in the latter -
the AoC.

The view of customer-provider relationship also matches the IETF position.

We may still consider an AoC or an MoU with the IETF covering shared IP
registry management and reverse DNS, but it is a separate issue.



More information about the CRISP mailing list