[address-policy-wg] Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status

* Brian Storey
> I only have a short window to reply, however I would clarify that I fall in
> to the " Registering a PA Assignment with something like "CUSTOMER-1234" and
> an email address pointing to the LIR has been acceptable for all this
> time.»" category. I am therefore looking at this through the lens of this
> approach.
>
> In which-ever form the end user is illustrated, it's the total permitted
> absence of that which is the surprise; Unless I have misunderstood the
> recently shared RIPE NNC interpretation.
Hi again Brian,

To be clear, "CUSTOMER-1234" above was not meant to be substituted with 
the actual name of the customer, but rather taken as verbatim netname 
attribute value. While one may infer from that string that it is indeed 
a customer assignment (as opposed a self-assignment to the LIR's own 
infrastructure), as well as revealing a possible customer account 
number, even those bits of information are optional to include. Below 
you will find an example of a complete inetnum object representing an 
assignment to the End User «CarFactory GmbH» by the LIR «SuperLIR GmbH», 
which RIPE NCC explicitly confirmed to be compliant with current address 
policy (see 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-September/013856.html):

    inetnum:  192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.128
    netname:  ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
    country:  DE
    admin-c:  SUPERLIR-NOC-RIPE
    tech-c:   SUPERLIR-NOC-RIPE
    status:   ASSIGNED PA
    mnt-by:   SUPERLIR-MNT
    source:   RIPE

If you, or anyone else, want to "minimise" your assignments as shown in 
the above example, you can do so already today. It is already considered 
accepted practice and has been for decades. 2023-04's fate is totally 
irrelevant as to whether or not you or any other LIR can adopt this 
practice, assuming you want to.

Best regards,

Jeroen & Tore