[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Mon Nov 4 13:59:14 CET 2013
* Tore Anderson > So in summary, while I would have preferred to see sections 2.4 and 2.5 > be removed completely, I consider the proposal as a whole to provide a > net benefit. Therefore: Support. Replying to myself because I forgot to mention something yesterday: I fail to see the point in having sections 2.1 and 2.2 as two separate options. They describe essentially the same option - where the legacy holder is (in the end) a RIPE NCC member. In my opinion it goes without saying that if the legacy holder opts for this option, then a) if he is not already a RIPE NCC member, then he would need to first join; or conversely, b) if he is already a RIPE NCC member, he would not need to (re-)join. Describing this as a single option would IMHO have made the policy more concise and easily understood. But fixing this would just be the icing on the cake - I still support the adoption of the proposal as-is («perfect is the enemy of good»). This particular imperfection, and the other things I mentioned yesterday, can be cleaned up later if someone cares enough to do so. Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]