[address-policy-wg] 62.222.0.0/15

In message <51955AEB-477D-4020-B6CD-67B8605BF0AD at clouvider.co.uk>, 
Dominik Nowacki <dominik at clouvider.co.uk> wrote:

>How about if this wasn’t full allocation transfer ? You are making a query
>about the particular exact size of the block so it wouldn’t show?
>
>Also, baffled that you have the guts to continue on this quest following an
>obviously false accusation that you started it with?

Sir, I do think you have me mixed up with someone else.  I have
made no "acccusation" against anyone for anything.

I think that you may perhaps be mistaking my desire to understand
why the WHOIS data base queries sometimes (often?) yield results
which are both surprising and entirely non-intutive, as I have just
amply illustrated, I think, for something which is somehow accusatory
towards some resource holder.

I do think that the evidence shows that there is at least some
recognizable possibility that the data base query mechanisms may
be operating in a less than ideal manner, and thus producing
less than ideal results.  But even if that is verified to be true,
then my only "quest" would be to try to get the NCC folks to fix
the broken data base functionality... a laudable goal which I would
hope would garner nearly universal support.


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  Perhaps I am now a victim of my own success.  I am aware, as
are others, I guess, that over time I have been rather successful
at ferreting out instances in which various IPv4 blocks somehow
ended up in the Wrong Hands.  But I hope that everyone will still
give me the benefit of the doubt, regadless of that, and allow
for the possibility that when I raise an issue about a data base
quirk, I really am only looking to discuss the data base quirk, and
that I have neither any hidden meaning nor any hidden agenda.

Of couse, if the simple example I posted is *not* merely a result of
either my misunderstanding of the data base access methods (most
likely explanation) -or- a result of an actual obscure failure of
the data base or its access methods, then the only possibility left
is that some party did indeed get a /15 in August of 2019, in clear
contravention to established RIPE policy at the time.  This is so
obviously unlikely however that it can be almost entirely discounted
as even being a possibility.  So eiher I'm confused about how I
am interpreting the data or else the data base access methods are
giving confusing (and misleading?) responses.  In either case, I'd
like to see the problem eliminated.