On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:51:21PM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
For PA space, I'm able to locate LIR responsible for each particular assignment almost without exception. I just like similar option for PI addresses. This information is hidden.
That is exactly the nub of the argument. There IS NO responsibility of a LIR for a PI assignment, this responsibility lies with the resource holder. The only "responsibility" the sponsoring LIR has is to forward information to the NCC, the LIR does not even have the discretion to approve or deny this assignment itself. This proposal tries to establish a responsibility on the part of the sponsoring LIR for the behaviour of the resource holder. The NCC has, cynically, acknowledged this fact by designing an implementation procedure whereby each sponsoring LIR is asked whether they don't want to get rid of inconvenient PI contracts altogether.
PI address space wasn't designed for this kind of "privacy". Why should be there any difference between end-user of PA and end-user of PI address in terms of responsible LIR publication? You didn't provided clear ansver for that.
For the fundamental difference between PI and PA, see above. If this difference is not wanted, please support 2013-06. I have one more thing to say to the RIPE community: The outcome of the "PDP" seems to have, lately, mostly depended on *who* floated a proposal, *who* objected and *who* yelled the loudest. Not even to mention ad hominem attacks from "terrorist" to "crazy". If you keep insisting on making this PDP a vehicle for giving the ideas of a small clique a veneer of legitimacy, the internet community *will route around you*. The RIR system will become irrelevant. That's all folks, Sascha Luck PS: I'm still opposed to this proposal, in case it wasn't clear enough. Not that it matters.