[db-wg] A test on AFRINIC range announcing without RIPE route object

Hi colleagues:

I do not mean in the very least sense to delay an implementation unless the
risk shown by it is far too serious. So if it is just because no one
notices the problem in the very beginning (which I am trying to address
now), does that mean we have to ignore it? A dangerous bridge cannot be
built even in the very last minute, no matter how long it takes to
implement that project, if one notices there’s a risk it may break. This
bridge now is network. To ensure the network works, it’s all RIR, not just
Afrinic’s reponsibility to take care of the matter.

And as for the definition of consensus, yes, the consensus is  declear by
the chair. What I am referring to is the definition of rough consensus(not
the “consensus” happened a couple of months ago), because the resolution is
not acceptable by all parties, an accutral consensus is not yet achieved.
Please do not confuse the process with that of consensus.

All I am asking here is to delay implementation and give Afrinic sometime
to fix their IRR.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 20:27 Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 08:11:34PM +0800, Lu Heng wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 20:10 Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 08:03:20PM +0800, Lu Heng via db-wg wrote:
> > > > And until then, I think there is not enough consensus from the
> community
> > > to
> > > > implement this change in the future.
> > >
> > > This has been discussed extensively and there has been consensus to go
> > > ahead with this.
> >
> > That???s a bullying answer.
>
> It's the way our community works.
>
> We discuss a problem, propose a solution, get agreement on problem and
> solution, get an implementation plan, agree to this, and *then implement
> it*.
>
> We do *not* go through all the process and stop right at the end because
> someone decides to disagree *months after the time for discussion was
> ended*.
>
> > An consensus define as an acceptable resolution to all parties, and we
> > being one of the party find the solution unacceptable with sounding
> > argument, therefore no consensus.
>
> Please read RFC7282 - while we're not the IETF, this is comparably to
> the way the RIPE working groups operate wrt consensus and "someone is
> always complaining".
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael
> Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20180613/8a775585/attachment.html>