[dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria

Subject: Re: [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:06:33PM +0300 Quoting Nick Hilliard (nick at foobar.org):
> Måns Nilsson wrote on 12/06/2019 22:42:
> > 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.
> 
> we don't really need this because it's not fixing a problem. If an actual
> problem crops up in future, then creating a policy might be one potential
> approach for handling it, or maybe not.  Otherwise, the RIPE NCC's record
> for handling dns delegation over the years shows that they're doing a good
> job and unless this changes, the best thing to do would be to let them
> continue doing their job as they see fit.

This, s what I mean with "absolute minimum of policy footwork". 

I think we're done. 
-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE           SA0XLR            +46 705 989668
... I see TOILET SEATS ...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20190612/3627c0ae/attachment.sig>