This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] policy compliance dashboard
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] policy compliance dashboard
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] policy compliance dashboard
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Thu May 14 11:54:42 CEST 2020
> On 13 May 2020, at 21:42, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ncc-services-wg <ncc-services-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > > I've clearly explained in my email that it was basically a copy and paste from another RIR proposal, where they are missing things that in RIPE we have solved already. Thinks need to be read in context to make sense, and I think it makes sense to openly discuss ideas before coming into proposal, right? This clarification helps a lot Jordi. Thanks. However it doesn’t help in a good way from your PoV. If I understand you correctly, you’re promoting a policy proposal from another RIR which solves a problem we don’t have in RIPE because it’s already been fixed. Is that correct? If so, this doesn’t seem to be a sensible way to proceed or make policy. If we are to openly discuss this idea any further, I think you need to start with a clear problem statement. What is it that you think needs fixing and how does this proposal from another RIR do that? It may well fix their problem(s). I don’t know or care about that. I’d like to know what RIPE problem(s) it fixes.
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] policy compliance dashboard
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] policy compliance dashboard
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]