[address-policy-wg] Re: [db-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation

David Kessens wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 03:08:57PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
> 
>>We have received input from APNIC on the subject.  They proposed a
>>simpler layout, and we think their suggestion makes sense.  However,
>>we would like to go forward with a slightly modified version that
>>incorporates the "organisation" object we are working on.
> 
> If you like their proposal, is there any reason why we cannot go ahead
> with their prososal instead of making yet another incompatible
> change between RIPE NCC and APNIC ?!?

Aligning the policies and technologies as much as possible between the 
RIPE NCC and APNIC is indeed one of our goals.  We have not rejected 
APNIC's input, but are rather working with them to refine the thinking 
on "status:" in both regions.

We don't want to change the Database more than required, to avoid 
confusion and extra work for the users.  Therefore we want the best 
solution to be the one we actually implement, hopefully in as many 
regions as possible.  But it seems like this will take time, and we 
want to allow LIRs to sub-allocate as soon as possible.

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC