On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

Hi Lu,

> I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no need" policy.

I don't see the usefulness of second-guessing how obsolete policy would have been applied. Can you explain the relevance to current policy development?

Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious, but I believe we still need to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we do not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to develop future?

As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element in our past policy will help us going future with our current policy development.

If this list is patient enough, we won't have people coming back over and over again with asking NCC to be police force, reclamation of resources.

Also in the Ripe meeting with the younger people I've talked to, many of them do not understand how the policy being developed today because there is no start point, we ware not there since it started, not there for over two decades like many friends here.

One day someone interested about policy development searching for future understanding of the *need*, will see it has been blocked to discuss here.

I hope it does not happen.

> We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.

RIPE NCC only would assign provider independent resources. To LIRs RIPE NCC would allocate resources and then verify policy requirements, such as need, when the LIR makes assignments from the allocation.

> The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view:

I am not going into the details of your examples as they are no longer relevant to current policy development. In general: assignments are quite specific. As an LIR you assign resources to your own infrastructure or a specific customer. Whenever any of that changes (i.e. customers changing, expansion of networks etc) it would be considered a new assignment which would require new justification (need etc).

I believe it is relevant as I have explained above.

So the correct thing to do in the database (to keep things a bit relevant) would be to delete the old assignments and create new ones. That would keep the history nice and clean (old object would be for the old assignment, new object with new creation date would be for the new assignment).

Cheers,
Sander

"Are you still talking about RIPE NCC here? You are talking about situations and concepts that seem to have nothing to do with our region... Let's stop this discussion on hypothetical impact of hypothetical policy."

This is a pure policy discussion and not relevant to the region really, need exists or existed in every region.

"It depends what the conditions were for getting the assignment in the first place. If you were allowed to make an assignment for reason X then you can't just change X. You can change Y and Z, as long as they weren't part of the condition. What those fictional X, Y and Z might be are completely dependent on the actual policy, and for addresses we don't have any needs criteria anymore so this is all hypothetical."

all the assignment for an "service", in which what confuse me is "does RIR also manage the infrastructure detail for the service"?

No offense here in anyway, as I repeated said, I just trying to understand *need*. that's it.

--
Kind regards.
Lu