[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 ]
Måns Nilsson
mansaxel at besserwisser.org
Wed Jun 12 21:42:33 CEST 2019
Subject: Re: [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:10:01PM +0200 Quoting Jonas Frey (jf at probe-networks.de): > 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. It is now, since Anand replied to the list, in <68c1d8f7-7b0b-a5d0-d1ed-d75f215624d2 at ripe.net> . I suggest that we perform the absolute minimum of policy footwork to endorse this procedure as is. Because I feel we have a strong if not absolute consensus for carrying on as usual from those who spoke up here. I'm a tad rusty on procedure here, so others will have to help with how we continue. Regards, -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE SA0XLR +46 705 989668 Xerox your lunch and file it under "sex offenders"! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20190612/201f2894/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 ]