This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Sun Nov 4 10:03:49 CET 2012
* Milton L Mueller > If you need this information to confirm your "belief" that this info > can be extracted from existing stats file, a reasonable person would > conclude that maybe we should make the information available in the > format suggested by 2012-05. The format suggested by 2012-05 is fine by me. I would prefer something that is easily parsed by a script, for example something inspired by the delegated-ripencc-extended format: ; network|length|date|sourceLIR|destinationLIR 192.0.2.0|256|20121104|no.anderson|us.mueller > In other words, you want to see everything that 2012-05 would allow anyone to see. Yes, I do strongly support the notion that the above information should be made available to the community by the NCC. > A reasonable person would interpret this as support for 2012-05. As noted above, I do indeed support 2012-05's goal of making this information available to the community. However, my earlier objection to the proposal is only relating to how this is accomplished, and whether or not is is really necessary to add even more text to an already excessively long and complicated policy document. The way I see it, if the NCC publishes the information voluntarily, compelling them through policy anyway amounts to redundant micromanagement. The NCC's impact analysis seemed to address this concern, by saying, essentially: «We are willing to publish the details requested, somebody just have to ask us first». So I asked. To my surprise, I got a negative answer. In light of that, it would seem that we do need to compel the NCC to publish the information after all. Hence, I do support 2012-05. That said, if the NCC at a later point in the PDP starts publishing the information voluntarily, I withdraw my support of the proposal and instead object to it, on the grounds that it will be redundant and only serve to further bloat the policy text. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]