On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 12:52:13PM -0500, David Farmer wrote:
On 8/4/13 12:15 , Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:48 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu <mailto:farmer@umn.edu>> wrote:
I'm not introducing anything new, I'm objecting to the removal of something that has always been there, as are others.
As I understand it, there has "always" been a requirement for need. I don't disagree that this is nothing new.
However, you used the phrase "verified operational need", which is something different.
I am a n00b in the RIPE community, so I have certainly not read everything there is, but from what I have seen, read and understand, this verification thing is new.
If you wanted more than the minimum it was always necessary to provide a story that passed a smell test. Also, if you wanted another batch of numbers you always had to explain what did with the old ones you were given, usually providing some data, much of the "bureaucracy" 2013-3 wants to eliminate.
Verified: 1. Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified. 2. Swear to or support (a statement) by affidavit.
Justified: 1. Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. 2. Declared or made righteous in the sight of God.
So, please tell me how "verified operational need" is that different. If you would prefer justified or validated operational need. OK, what ever.
persuant to your comments and David Conrads contribution, I'd suggest that the "smell test" criteria has changed dramatically over the years. Nearly all the IPv4 space I have requested has passed the "verified operational need" using the Warren Buffet test. (he's a man of good character) These days it sometimes goes as far as explaining a business model, showing signed contracts, bank statements, customer lists and credit reports on clients. There is a argument to be made that RIRs have gone too far into delving into a request... boardering on harrassment and restraint of trade. Not saying that the Buffet test alone is good either. /bill