On 17/11/2015 22:55, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 08:44:17PM +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
This is a serious issue that will affect all of us. The chairs take this issue into the consensus-reaching process and we ask the authors and working group to address this. I didn't anticipate this issue, either, and I agree that the RIPE NCC's concerns are valid and real.
Shouldn't this be a rather straightforward thing to fix in the proposal?
Or am I missing something here? Since the intentions basically are to do "the right thing" (so, PA blocks can only be transferred to LIRs or "member of other RIRs", not to "anyone having a contract", etc.) and just the wording got simplified too much, I do not see unforeseeable problems here.
If there is consensus otherwise to go forward, this will need a textual change that very clearly states in no unclear terms what can be done (and by omission, what can not be done), and another impact analysis - so, one extra round through the PDP. But it is not the first time that the IA uncovered wording that needs to be clarified "if read by an outsider", so it's good that we have it :-)
And of course the NCC can't fix the problem. That is up to the community. Nigel