[address-policy-wg] Policy update request on certification of transferred IPv4 allocations

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Sascha Luck <lists-ripe at c4inet.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:15:19PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
>  2.2. re-open the discussion about resource certification at half-cock,
>> which will lead to a re-run of the same arguments put forward for 2008-08.
>> The intention of the policy change here is to fix a policy bug, and it
>> would be a shame to have it ending up as an unnecessary re-hash of
>> 2008-08.
>>
>
> Damn. I never looked at it from that angle. Nick is right, this creates
> RPKI policy by the back-door.


I'm not so sure it does, the word "may" doesn't obligate the NCC to do
anything.


>
>
>  The easiest and simplest thing would be to drop the sentence completely,
>> at
>> which point the de-facto RIPE NCC procedures concerning certification will
>> apply.  If this seems like a sensible and pragmatic approach to others, I
>> can oblige from the policy proposal point of view.  Or someone else can,
>> if
>> they want.
>>
>
> In light of the above, this is eminently the most sensible solution.
>


Probably.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130221/1acea6cb/attachment.html>