[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)

* Tore Anderson

> So in summary, while I would have preferred to see sections 2.4 and 2.5
> be removed completely, I consider the proposal as a whole to provide a
> net benefit. Therefore: Support.

Replying to myself because I forgot to mention something yesterday:

I fail to see the point in having sections 2.1 and 2.2 as two separate
options. They describe essentially the same option - where the legacy
holder is (in the end) a RIPE NCC member.

In my opinion it goes without saying that if the legacy holder opts for
this option, then a) if he is not already a RIPE NCC member, then he
would need to first join; or conversely, b) if he is already a RIPE NCC
member, he would not need to (re-)join.

Describing this as a single option would IMHO have made the policy more
concise and easily understood. But fixing this would just be the icing
on the cake - I still support the adoption of the proposal as-is
(«perfect is the enemy of good»). This particular imperfection, and the
other things I mentioned yesterday, can be cleaned up later if someone
cares enough to do so.

Tore