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
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/current policy (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/current policy (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Mon Feb 11 16:14:45 CET 2013
Ronald, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 09/02/2013 20:33: > 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? If the NCC, who authored the document, don't come along and answer soon, I'll take it up with them directly. Brian
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/current policy (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/current policy (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]