[ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Mon May 20 16:42:35 CEST 2013
* Sascha Luck > I'm afraid that every objection made to 2008-08 (which proposal failed > to achieve consensus) applies exactly the same to this proposal. Rather > than re-iterating every argument here again, I refer to the > original thread re. 2008-08: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-May/005737.html If I read it correctly, the linked to argument is against RPKI as a whole. However, 2013-04 isn't a question on whether we should do RPKI or not, but whether or not our *existing* RPKI stuff should be extended to include non-members. I think it should. If we're doing something to begin with, we shouldn't be doing it half-arsed. So I support the policy. I've got one question though. What is the rationale for the requirement that «the Internet resources reside within the RIPE NCC service region»? I don't see the reason for this. IMHO, any PI/legacy space issued/maintained by the RIPE NCC should be eligible for certification under this policy, no matter where on (or off!) the planet it's being used. Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]