Hi Gilles, first of all thank you for your feedback.
This said, reading the Impact Analysis I see two points that worries me.
Under A.: "The "abuse-c:" attribute must reference a role object".
The policy text does not specify 'role'. And I see no good reason for the NCC to interpret the policy that way. (btw, if a policy needs interpretation even before it is implemented then maybe it might need some refining)
I did that on purpose. :-) The first version of this proposal was very technical and did not really take care about internal RIPE NCC things. The idea now was to shorten it to a minimum and let the maintainers of the DB, the RIPE NCC tech staff, come up with a starting point for further discussion. RIPE NCC tech staff has much more experience in developing and maintaining their database, than I will ever have. ;-)
Under C, phase two: I was under the impression that the policy was to be voluntary at first, and that the mandatory part was to be discussed further on, ideally with some information about the uptake of the object. Now I missed when the restrictive appeared in v.2 of the draft appeared...so be it. But now "The RIPE NCC will also plan to decommission irt objects...".
So if the current, short and simple, policy text is used to sneak in undiscussed features via the impact analysis I have no choice but to object.
I think this is not a completely undiscussed topic at all. We have already talked about the future of the IRT Object. And undiscussed issues are one of the reasons, that Emilio last week and Brian today asked for feedback. I do not see RIPE NCC sneaking in undiscussed features. RIPE NCC was asked to make a suggestion on how to implement the policy text into DB. The irt issue is part of the clean-up that I talked about in the proposal. RIPE NCC just described it in the way they would implement it. Thanks for your feedback, Tobias