[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] 2010-06 is going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Thu Jan 27 10:57:45 CET 2011
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:38:46AM +0200, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote: > I am sure that RIPE NCC is not the only interested party for the > publication of an assignment-size attribute. Interest != need. Publishing potentially sensitive data just because people are "interested" is not a good enough reason in my book of data protection principles. Next time people ask for weekly updated fill-level: attributes in PD pools so "interested" folks can "transparently" verify wether usage levels are according to the rules that NCC enforces (and obtain further business intelligence as a side effect, how convenient). Anyway, as the proposal is in Last Call, I'll rest my case. I'm still totally unconvinced that this a good idea. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] 2010-06 is going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]