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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Policy update request on certification of transferred IPv4 allocations
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy update request on certification of transferred IPv4 allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2013022101004151] Policy update request on certification of transferred IPv4 allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Feb 21 17:59:09 CET 2013
On 2/21/13 10:30 , McTim wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Sascha Luck <lists-ripe at c4inet.net > <mailto: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. While I tend to agree that it doesn't actually create RPKI policy, the fact that it would be mentioning certificates or signing at all does create an impression that it is creating RPKI policy. > 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. Given the lack of actual RPKI policy, it seems sensible to not create any confusion or give the impression that there is backdoor RPKI policy being created and just remove the sentence completely. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy update request on certification of transferred IPv4 allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2013022101004151] Policy update request on certification of transferred IPv4 allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]