[address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Daniel Velea
elvis at v4escrow.net
Wed Apr 26 00:41:57 CEST 2017
Hi Sascha, On 4/26/17 1:26 AM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > Hi Elvis, > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:42:12PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: >> >> What it will do is, for 'transfers' of Legacy space where both the >> old and the new holder want to have it verified by the RIPE NCC, both >> parties will need to sign a document where parties authorised to sign >> will confirm the change of the legacy holder (basically, a transfer). > > Oh, this is *voluntary*? kinda... I am expecting all Buyers to request this process when they decide to receive a Legacy Resource. I would definitely request it if I knew the RIPE NCC can provide an additional confirmation. > This is not obvious from the language of > the proposed changes and one does not, perhaps, expect to see > anything non-mandatory in a RIPE policy document ;p hehe I tried to make this change as simple and as easy as possible for the LRHs. I knew that some would not agree with having additional requirements added, so I tried to make it as such that it would not be mandatory. I don't like to add barriers that could affect the registry in the long run. Maybe we will need to have a version where the wording is more clear. Let's see what the others say and what will be the RIPE NCC's understanding of the text once they make the Impact Analysis. > > So let me see if I have this right: > > - Transfers of legacy space stay outside the NCC's purview to > the extent they do now? > > - LRH who *want* to have a resource transfer verified can do so > by submitting verification paperwork of some description? In an ideal world, all LRHs would want this as it would 'secure' their 'transfer'. > > - Changes in the db wrt legacy resources where the LRHs do *not* > want this are marked as "non-verified by NCC" or something like > that but they are not rejected? correct. A legacy resource that has been updated to reflect an other LRH will be marked somewhere in the lines of 'changed but not verified'. > >> Even after the comments above, do you still object to the proposal? > > If my above understanding is correct, and an updated proposal > would insert some language to make the voluntary nature of the > transaction clearer, I'll withdraw my objection on that point. ok, thank you for your understanding. > As > for the cost of it and possible defrayment of same, I'll wait for > the Impact Statement before making a decision. I doubt there will be any significant cost. We'll have to wait for the NCC to complete their Impact Analysis. > > Sorry for the misunderstanding, if that it was, and best regards, > Sascha Luck > thank you, Elvis
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]