[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid?

I think I mostly agree with Nick here and I feel like Tore is a bit
dismissive of the concerns raised by denis.

I don't really feel that strongly about this policy proposal in itself
but I do now see that it is a significantly larger change than Tore
suggests that it is.
I wouldn't be surprised if more people who have said "+1" to this
proposal did so without realizing that it's not such a minor change.
As such, I really think that there needs to be more discussion about
this in the context of changing a meaningful part of the policy.

-Cynthia

P.S. I want to make it clear that I don't think that Tore is being
malicious in any way here but rather just focusing too much on the
current RIPE NCC interpretation of the policy rather than what the
policies actually say.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:46 PM Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
>
> denis walker wrote on 28/09/2023 11:31:
> > We are talking about one sentence in the current address policy that
> > this proposal removes.
>
> that's ok: the RIPE Community is entitled to voice an opinion on
> changing RIPE policy.
>
> If this policy nullifies the requirement to register end-user PA
> assignments in the RIPE DB, I don't necessarily view this as a bad
> thing, given the poor quality of the existing data, and the fact that
> fixing this is - whether we accept this or not - a largely intractable
> problem.
>
> That said, it's important that any change of this scope should be done
> with the community's eyes open so that we can make an informed decision
> based on merit.
>
> Nick
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/