[ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 Proposal Accepted - Request for Clarification
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 Proposal Accepted - Request for Clarification
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 Request for Clarification
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jørgensen
rogerj at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 20:51:44 CET 2013
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Sascha Luck <lists-ripe at c4inet.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 03:55:30PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: > >> The updated RIPE document is ripe-577 and is available at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-577 > > > ripe-577 contains, in S5.5 the sentence: > > "Re-allocated blocks will be signed to establish the current allocation > owner." > > What does this refer to? Does this mean these blocks will *mandatorily* > be signed with a RPKI certificate and, if yes, how does that square with > the NCC's stated policy that RPKI certs will always be voluntary? I really hope that's a type or forgotten connection somehow. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 Proposal Accepted - Request for Clarification
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 Request for Clarification
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]