Hi, On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 12:47:11PM +0000, Jeroen Lauwers wrote:
b. Arguments opposing the proposal ??? An exception to the main rule does not make the overall policy more understandable.
This. I am not convinced why adding a special-case "may" for "LIR to itself" while keeping the "must" for "LIR to others" would be a good idea of any sorts. "The database has issues with having an allocation being used all-in-one for one specific customer (the LIR itself)" is an implementation detail, but policy should not be driven by "database stuff is hard". Now, relaxing the overall mandate on customer data registration to something that just states "this is assigned, and the responsible tech/abuse contacts are as follows" without requiring to name any customers would be something I find a useful thought, given that the argument "assignments used to be necessary to document allocation usage, when coming back to the NCC" is as valid for LIR-to-itself as for LIR-to-third-parties. Gert Doering -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279