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

Hi Elvis,

Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

[...]

> Is there a need for that...? How many LRH have expressed concerns
> about such a gap?
It is not a gap in the policies. Transfers of legacy space are currently
not verified and/or approved by the RIPE NCC. Any update of a LR in the
database object does not require the RIPE NCC to update the registry.

If there is no gap in the policies and what you are proposing is service, why 
was this introduced to the Address Policy WG? The charter for the RIPE NCC 
Services Working Group makes it clear that it is the home for discussions 
about the introduction of new services and tools 
(https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services).

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4988 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170428/4546dc65/attachment.p7s>