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/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/current policy (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/AAWG charter (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/current policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Sat Feb 9 21:33:24 CET 2013
In message <5116686A.8020208 at heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote: >Ronald F. Guilmette wrote, On 08/02/2013 20:07: >> >> It would appear that a newer revision of this document exists: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-541 > >Sorry, my mistake, I picked the wrong version. 541 has also been updated: > >https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-578 > >Can you just check your questions still apply to this version? Yes, they still do apply. I would still like to know why Section B.1.b apparently says that RIPE NCC _might_ reclaim the improperly allocated resources whereas Section B.1.e says quite clearly that RIPE NCC "will" reclaim the resources. Again, my question is: Was this difference in wording intentional and deliberate? Or was it inadvertant and unintended? Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/AAWG charter (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/current policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]