[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Wed Feb 27 08:30:13 CET 2019
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote: > Am 26.02.2019 um 23:13 schrieb Cynthia Revström: >> I have also been informed that this might be a rather unique case in regards to having multiple physical locations requiring PI space. > > It's not ? been there myself, and got really annoyed by the way the NCC > entered spanish-inquisition-mode (like asking for physical location of > DCs used, IMHO NOTB, and upstream mail contacts, again NOTB). That was > pre-GDPR, these days I'd follow up with "provide legal statement under > GDPR that allows you to ask this question, and process any answer". > Hrmpft. Hi, I fail to understand how a DC location could in any way be related to a GDPR violation. I also don't understand how asking for upstream mail contacts (i.e. professional ones, that any ASN should in theory have published, role or individual shouldn't make a difference) can violate GDPR. I guess "purpose" for asking is quite easy to understand -- checking if an upstream really exists at that point in time, which may be part of the process. Cheers, Carlos > -kai > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]