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@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@mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
... 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@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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net