[dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jonas Frey
jf at probe-networks.de
Tue Jun 11 23:10:01 CEST 2019
Ian, > I'd argue that it is not controversial at all. > We have good BCP and the RIPE NCC delegation checks it. > By all means wait for the RIPE NCC to respond, but I see no reason to > change the status quo. > This seems like a complaint about nothing of importance IMHO. > > Ian Well, even if you do not want to change the status quo then this complaint has one undoubtful point: This whole BCP (whatever that includes in detail) is nowhere documented. - Jonas -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20190611/58019a77/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]