[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 Discussion Period extended until 21 February 2013 (RIPE NCC Service to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)

Randy Bush wrote:

>>Coming back after stating my general support yesterday, to one of the
>>individual issues that may benefit from changes:
>>
>>I don't remember who already pointed fingers at the ROA service
>>(thanks!), but we - eventually - may have a pretty convincing carrot
>>by offering the "Certification of these data;" (which I read as being
>>ROA and future friends) only to LHRs that have established a formal
>>relationship and are paying for the service according to 2.1 ... 2.4.
>>
>>Certification is a service that has been developed recently by the
>>RIRs, so IMO there is no legacy "right" here. This would apply for the
>>cases described in 2.5 and certainly 2.6.
> 
> 
> < as one of the proposers >
> 
> this carrot is not accidental.  your first paragraph would seem to
> indicate that you would prefer to dilute this encouragement to form
> a formal relationship?  am i misreading?

Yes, I think so :-(

Trying again:

in 1.1., there's a taxative list of services that includes Cerification,

while 2.6 states:
"In such a case, the RIPE NCC will *continue to provide those registry services
which are already being provided* in respect of the Legacy Internet Resource or
Resources involved, and may update the related entries in the RIPE Database
from time to time to correspond to current actual situation."

I read that as including Certification per the list in 1.1,
or am *I* misrading here?

> randy

Wilfried