This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Reassigning Referenced ASNs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period until 9 July on revised RIPE Policy document for IPv6 database objects
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period until 9 July on revised RIPE Policy document for IPv6 database objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Monosov
davidm at futureinquestion.net
Tue Jun 25 16:09:09 CEST 2013
Dear address-policy-wg, This has unintentionally gone out as a reply to Emilio's post '[address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period until 9 July on revised RIPE Policy document for IPv6 database objects' but was meant as a response to Andrea's post '[address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Reassigning Referenced ASNs'; my apologies. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 06/25/2013 04:05 PM, David Monosov wrote: > Dear Andrea Cima, address-policy-wg, > > Since it is not included as an option, is there any reason why simply > reassigning the AS numbers after a period of time, but notifying object > maintainers which reference the AS number that this has occurred (or is about to > occur) would not be the best solution? > > Keeping limited resources out of the recycling pool because of laziness or lack > of situational awareness of some operators seems like a poor approach. > > Butchering object and outdated RPSL policies of operators and replacing them > with selectively less outdated versions automatically seems undesirable as well > since it may break any further operator automation which (wrongfully or not) may > rely on those objects. > > -- > Respectfully yours, > > David Monosov > > On 06/25/2013 03:29 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward >> with a review of the policy document ripe-513, "Value of the "status:" >> and "assignment-size:" attributes in INET6NUM objects for sub-assigned >> PA space". >> >> A draft of the policy document is online and ready for community >> review at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-documents >> >> The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review >> period until 9 July 2013 to allow the community more time to give their >> feedback. >> >> Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy >> Working Group at <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>. >> >> Kind regards, >> Emilio Madaio >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period until 9 July on revised RIPE Policy document for IPv6 database objects
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period until 9 July on revised RIPE Policy document for IPv6 database objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]