[db-wg] Proposal to revert NWI-10
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal to revert NWI-10
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal to revert NWI-10
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Cynthia Revström
me at cynthia.re
Mon Dec 7 14:49:09 CET 2020
This is not my point, yes I could easily ask them to fix my specific case. My point is that I very much doubt I am the only one who has this issue, and I only noticed it as I was looking on bgp.he.net and noticed the GB flag. - Cynthia On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:48 PM Matthias Merkel <matthias.merkel at staclar.com> wrote: > Hi Cynthia, > > ORG-ISSA10-RIPE is your LIR, right? It does indeed look like it should > have a country attribute of Sweden. Did you ask the NCC about this already? > Did they mention any reason for it being GB? > > Matthias Merkel > Staclar, Inc. > ------------------------------ > *From:* Cynthia Revström <me at cynthia.re> > *Sent:* Monday, December 7, 2020 2:40 PM > *To:* Matthias Merkel <matthias.merkel at staclar.com> > *Cc:* db-wg at ripe.net <db-wg at ripe.net> > *Subject:* Re: [db-wg] Proposal to revert NWI-10 > > Hi Matthias, > > Well before NWI-10 there was no proper definition, but there is now a > definition, and as a result the RIPE NCC updated the resources to GB > whereas the LIR is quite obviously SE. > > - Cynthia > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:16 PM Matthias Merkel < > matthias.merkel at staclar.com> wrote: > > Hi Cynthia, > > > > Could you please elaborate on why the data is now invalid (what you think > it is supposed to be, what it is now and what situation is causing it to be > this way)? My understanding is that there was never a “proper” definition > of the country field. > > > > Matthias Merkel > > Staclar, Inc. > > > > *From:* db-wg <db-wg-bounces at ripe.net> *On Behalf Of *Cynthia Revström > via db-wg > *Sent:* Monday, 7 December 2020 14:04 > *To:* DB-WG <db-wg at ripe.net> > *Subject:* Re: [db-wg] Proposal to revert NWI-10 > > > > To clarify, when I said "messed up the data on my resources" I meant that > the delegated file now has invalid data. > > And invalid data that is supposed to be correct is a lot worse than > incorrect data that is just provided by the resource holder. > > > - Cynthia > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 1:58 PM Cynthia Revström <me at cynthia.re> wrote: > > Apologies if this email is a bit impolite. > > > > From the start NWI-10 seemed like a pointless policy to me and just a > policy that was made because the db-wg wanted to make more policies. > > > > But as it has already messed up the data on my resources, I see it as a > policy that messes up data and wastes time for no real advantage. > > > > Hence I suggest that we revert NWI-10 unless someone actually has a good > reason for why the legal address needs to match the delegated file, and how > to implement it in a non-messy way. > > > > - Cynthia > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20201207/3aa1315d/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal to revert NWI-10
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal to revert NWI-10
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]