<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="en-NL" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hi Randy</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you very much for your quick response. I noted down your feedback, but can you please elaborate a bit more regarding your concern on the concentration of authority? Let me ask you quickly a question: Aren�t we doing
this already with RPKI system? Last time I checked my routinator installation, it had 5 root TALs only (apart from the experimental ones) and the recommendation from the RPKI promoters is to keep it as is and not create more root TALs. Did anything change
recently, and we missed it? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Nevertheless, this BCOP is targeting a very specific use-case and has neither global applicability nor a policy-enforcement nature. Other network operators perhaps will still find uses cases to operate their networks
on RADB/NTT/Level3 etc etc<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kind Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Stavros<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="color:black">Randy Bush <randy@psg.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, 4 June 2024 at 19:09<br>
<b>To: </b>Stavros Konstantaras <stavros.konstantaras@ams-ix.net><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Connect-WG <connect-wg@ripe.net>, Andrei Dinu <andrei.dinu@digitalit.ro>, Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it>, Will van Gulik <will@van.gulik.ch><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">thanks for the work<br>
<br>
it could use an executive/tldr summary up front<br>
<br>
and i do not support adoption as a bcop. concentration of authority and<br>
power, just what we're trying not to do these years.<br>
<br>
invalidating the irrs of ntt, level3, et alia is destructive, not<br>
productive.<br>
<br>
similar for other non-rir irrs.<br>
<br>
i would support preferring some irrs in case of duplication/conflict<br>
<br>
randy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>