[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Fri Sep 23 15:38:21 CEST 2011
Hello Nick, >> Someone suggested to include such documentation in IPv6 PI requests. >> Because this is not actually a policy change (it doesn't change if >> someone gets the address space or not) but an implementation issue we >> decided to add it as a note to the RIPE NCC. > > I certainly suggested it as a policy possibility: > >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00820.html > > Not sure if others talked about it too. > > However, there is a substantial difference between "explicitly required to > provide evidence" and "to ask for extensive documentation" - the former was > suggested because it does materially change the policy. I know, but that would change the IPv6 PI policy into a judgement call by an IPRA. That would make the policy unimplementable. The information would still be interesting though, which is why I suggest to the RIPE NCC that they ask for it anyway. It's just a suggestion. We don't tell the NCC how to implement policy, but we can suggest :-) Thanks, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2084 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110923/907d1052/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]