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

Hi Sascha,


On 4/26/17 1:26 AM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> Hi Elvis,
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:42:12PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
>>
>> What it will do is, for 'transfers' of Legacy space where both the 
>> old and the new holder want to have it verified by the RIPE NCC, both 
>> parties will need to sign a document where parties authorised to sign 
>> will confirm the change of the legacy holder (basically, a transfer).
>
> Oh, this is *voluntary*? 
kinda... I am expecting all Buyers to request this process when they 
decide to receive a Legacy Resource. I would definitely request it if I 
knew the RIPE NCC can provide an additional confirmation.
> This is not obvious from the language of
> the proposed changes and one does not, perhaps, expect to see
> anything non-mandatory in a RIPE policy document ;p
hehe

I tried to make this change as simple and as easy as possible for the 
LRHs. I knew that some would not agree with having additional 
requirements added, so I tried to make it as such that it would not be 
mandatory. I don't like to add barriers that could affect the registry 
in the long run.

Maybe we will need to have a version where the wording is more clear. 
Let's see what the others say and what will be the RIPE NCC's 
understanding of the text once they make the Impact Analysis.
>
> So let me see if I have this right:
>
> - Transfers of legacy space stay outside the NCC's purview to
>  the extent they do now?
>
> - LRH who *want* to have a resource transfer verified can do so
>  by submitting verification paperwork of some description?
In an ideal world, all LRHs would want this as it would 'secure' their 
'transfer'.
>
> - Changes in the db wrt legacy resources where the LRHs do *not*
>  want this are marked as "non-verified by NCC" or something like
> that but they are not rejected?
correct. A legacy resource that has been updated to reflect an other LRH 
will be marked somewhere in the lines of 'changed but not verified'.
>
>> Even after the comments above, do you still object to the proposal?
>
> If my above understanding is correct, and an updated proposal
> would insert some language to make the voluntary nature of the
> transaction clearer, I'll withdraw my objection on that point.
ok, thank you for your understanding.
> As
> for the cost of it and possible defrayment of same, I'll wait for
> the Impact Statement before making a decision.
I doubt there will be any significant cost. We'll have to wait for the 
NCC to complete their Impact Analysis.
>
> Sorry for the misunderstanding, if that it was, and best regards,
> Sascha Luck
>
thank you,
Elvis