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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Fri Sep 29 15:46:20 CEST 2023
denis walker wrote on 28/09/2023 11:31: > We are talking about one sentence in the current address policy that > this proposal removes. that's ok: the RIPE Community is entitled to voice an opinion on changing RIPE policy. If this policy nullifies the requirement to register end-user PA assignments in the RIPE DB, I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing, given the poor quality of the existing data, and the fact that fixing this is - whether we accept this or not - a largely intractable problem. That said, it's important that any change of this scope should be done with the community's eyes open so that we can make an informed decision based on merit. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]