[address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)

Hi Carlos,


On 4/26/17 12:12 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> While the proposal's title seems to be a positive approach, as i read 
> it, its main goal is to add extra requirements for LRH by changing 
> «RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders».
The way I see it, this policy proposal does not add extra requirements, 
it adds an extra service.
>
> I think protection (or just better alarms in place!) for Legacy 
> address space is a good thing, however, i'm not sure an extra workload 
> for the NCC and the LRH in the case they want to transfer their 
> asset(s) is the way to go.
the extra workload is a document signed by the representatives of the 
two LRH (the Seller and the Buyer). The RIPE NCC verifies these kind of 
documents on a daily basis so I doubt that would be a whole lot of extra 
workload - they will confirm during the Impact Analysis.
>
> I also agree with Sascha Luck's previous comment about LRH having to 
> submit to an extra verification process.
As mentioned in my response to Sascha's e-mail, the LRH can and will 
still be able to update their objects in the RIPE Database even without 
any document signed.
All this policy proposal does is that when the two parties want to 
finalise the transfer and request RIPE NCC's confirmation, they will 
need to sign a document.
- the RIPE NCC would then verify the old holder is the legitimate LRH and
- the RIPE NCC will also verify the transfer document is signed by 
authorised signatories on both the old and the new LRH.
>
> In its current terms, i also object to this proposal.
Would there be any version that you would agree to, one that would 
consistently allow the RIPE NCC to publish the transfers of Intra-RIR 
legacy resources? They currently publish all but these.
>
> Best Regards,
> Carlos Friaças
>
thank you,
elvis