* Sander Steffann
Looking at the feedback I see two types of responses: - The policy proposal is good as it is - Information on rejected transfer should be anonymised
We could suggest to the proposer to add the 'anonymise rejected transfers' bit to the proposal, but we are not sure if that would gain support on one side while losing support from people who like the policy proposal as it currently is...
So... Again your feedback please! Is there anyone who thinks that anonymising details of rejected transfers is a bad idea? (and if so: please explain why)
I object to publishing information of rejected transfers (and, by extension, rejected pre-approvals). The NCC does not publish any information about rejected PA allocation requests either, and I don't see why transfers should be any different. If this requirement was removed, I would have no objections to the policy. That said, I am not quite sure it is really necessary, as all the requested information (except rejections) is already available: All allocations are listed in alloclist.txt along with their date and holding LIR (reg-id and name). It will be trivial to check for transfers - allocations made after the last /8 policy comes into effect outside of 185/8 must be transfers. (In addition, the allocation and date are also available in delegated-ripencc-extended-latest, and the details of the holding LIR is also available in the RIPE database.) The only information I know of that isn't easily accessible is which LIR originally held the transferred resource, since historic copies of alloclist.txt isn't available on the FTP. You would have had to build up your own archive by mirroring the file daily. I do expect that people who are interested in monitoring transfers would do just that, instead of waiting for the monthly digest called for by this proposal. I think that a simpler and probably much faster way (no PDP!) to accomplish the desired «transparency in address block transfers» would be to simply ask the NCC to publish historic versions of alloclist.txt, and/or to include a regid/LIR column for resources in delegated-ripencc-extended-latest (for which historic archives are available). This has been recently suggested in the services wg, but it was objected to, because of privacy issues for assignment holders (so irrelevant relevant to this proposal). I think I'll go and revive that thread now... Oh, and by the way: why specify exactly monthly? As noted above, the NCC has no problems publishing most of this information on a daily basis. If they are able to automatically publish the transfer list daily too, why not let them? -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com