[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 22:14:52 CEST 2019
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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20190612/3627c0ae/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 ]