27 Jan
2021
27 Jan
'21
2:27 a.m.
Hi Geoff,
The BGP part of the allocation process was previously carried out by Brian, who also
communicated directly with the end user via email, I have continued that same process
since I took over. Often the BGP process involves the exchange of private details that the
end user may not wish to share. To comply with the various privacy laws we have to start
from the standpoint of not sharing any information, unless the end user states otherwise.
Sometimes end users requesting a BGP allocation will CC their emails to someone else, i.e.
their coordinator, in which case I continue the discussion by using the “Reply-All”, that
wasn’t the case here.
That said, I understand that the current Portal does lack certain facilities that would be
useful to coordinators and others alike. The Portal is being redeveloped and one of the
new facilities will be full traceability and transparency for all allocation workflows,
including the BGP process. If you, or anyone on this list, would like to have input to the
development process please contact me and/or Rosy off list.
Thanks,
Chris - G1FEF
On 27 Jan 2021, at 06:26, Geoff Joy via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
Thanks, Chris for the response. My issue is with the lack of feedback. I
approved the allocation but it wasn't allocated to the network table. The
BGP is a secondary issue with respect to the allocation of the IP range and
I don't understand why it would have to be postponed due to the pending BGP
coordination. We waited a week for some kind of response but neither he nor
I had received anything. There is nothing in the process outline that I
read whereby the BGP goes into direct contact mode after the portal
assignment. He contacted me on Jan 23 after hearing nothing since I posted
the allocation on the 5th. I issued a contact query via the portal and also
received nothing. I'm happy to see you are conversing with Keith and I will
consider the matter closed. It would have been nice if you had taken the
time to inform me of the direct contact since it would have saved me
considerable time and I would not have wasted the bandwidth on the list.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:58 PM Paul Sladen via 44Net <
44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net ... in this case the end user and I have in fact
been happily
exchanging emails regarding the request, the last exchange being
about 8 hours ago.
On 26 Jan 2021, at 17:08, Geoff Joy via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
wrote:
> The end user has informed me that he is still
awaiting action on
> the request.
As a casual observe. I am puzzled.
Whilst I can't discuss individual cases on an
open mailing list
due to privacy concerns,
It's HAM, and ... like operating modes and frequency band allocation,
public *coordination* is required, otherwise "it don't work".
To put it bluntly, (IMHO) this stuff can (and probably should) be
discussed a *little* more openly to some degree...
In general terms, what are the circumstances that are making a
decision on this assignment complicated? Perhaps some wider input
would make implementing these types of (policy) decisions easier?
-Paul
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net