[dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria

Subject: Re: [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:10:01PM +0200 Quoting Jonas Frey (jf at probe-networks.de):
> Ian,
> 
> 
> > I'd argue that it is not controversial at all.
> > We have good BCP and the RIPE NCC delegation checks it.
> > By all means wait for the RIPE NCC to respond, but I see no reason to
> > change the status quo.
> > This seems like a complaint about nothing of importance IMHO.
> > 
> > Ian
> 
> Well, even if you do not want to change the status quo then this
> complaint has one undoubtful point:
> This whole BCP (whatever that includes in detail) is nowhere
> documented. 

It is now, since Anand replied to the list, in <68c1d8f7-7b0b-a5d0-d1ed-d75f215624d2 at ripe.net> . 

I suggest that we perform the absolute minimum of policy footwork to
endorse this procedure as is. Because I feel we have a strong if not
absolute consensus for carrying on as usual from those who spoke up here.

I'm a tad rusty on procedure here, so others will have to help with how
we continue.

Regards,
-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE           SA0XLR            +46 705 989668
Xerox your lunch and file it under "sex offenders"!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20190612/201f2894/attachment.sig>