Filiz, all, On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:19:05PM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
Agreed. Looking into how PDP is used and the consistency of its application across RIPE fits into our scope, as well as explaining when and how not using the full PDP gets chosen, why imo.
thanks.
The PDP itself and its implementation as well as the role of the chairs and their (s)election could be an item for this TF.
Maybe I am mis-reading your suggestion but the implementation is done by the RIPE NCC. Do you mean we should also look into how the NCC implements a policy that is accepted by the Community?
What I meant was the particular "instance" of the PDP itself, not the result and the execution/application by the NCC.
The most recent changes in the DB WG as well as the heterogeneity of rules might serve as starting points.
Can you elaborate on this? What are these changes you are referring to in the DB WG? I have not followed this issue closely and maybe some others do not know about it either.
Not being flippant but only to avoid adding confusion by just paraphrasing, here's the summary <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-December/005480.html> One might want to read a bit up-/down-thread. Consensus building around personnel decisions (or general yes/no questions) might turn out to be difficult. Best, Peter