David Kessens wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 03:08:57PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
We have received input from APNIC on the subject. They proposed a simpler layout, and we think their suggestion makes sense. However, we would like to go forward with a slightly modified version that incorporates the "organisation" object we are working on.
If you like their proposal, is there any reason why we cannot go ahead with their prososal instead of making yet another incompatible change between RIPE NCC and APNIC ?!?
Aligning the policies and technologies as much as possible between the RIPE NCC and APNIC is indeed one of our goals. We have not rejected APNIC's input, but are rather working with them to refine the thinking on "status:" in both regions. We don't want to change the Database more than required, to avoid confusion and extra work for the users. Therefore we want the best solution to be the one we actually implement, hopefully in as many regions as possible. But it seems like this will take time, and we want to allow LIRs to sub-allocate as soon as possible. -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC