Hi Ondřej,
I see nothing about temporary transfers in 5.5 of IPv5 policy.
It's in the third paragraph: 'Re-allocation must be reflected in the RIPE Database. This re-allocation may be on either a permanent or non-permanent basis.'
The leases would best fit under "sub-allocations", but that's just for downstream network operators (and I read that as BGP downstreams, not a random entity on the net).
That is exactly what Alexey Ivanov (LeaderTelecom) is discussing on this very list.
Also the transfers has to be approved by RIPE NCC, so you cannot ensure it's "temporary", because you can be denied the transfer-back.
No, handing back the addresses to the original holder is not a separate transfer. It's just the end of the original transfer.
Correct me if I read the policy in a wrong way.
I hope I have :-)
True, that was just my thinking about being a good "netizen", but it's not covered in the policy.
Anyway I still think the leases are not in the line with the current policy.
Using the label 'lease' might be a but confusing, but if they use the transfer policy with a temporary transfer it does fit. It would be helpful to have consistent naming for these things though. Met vriendelijke groet, Sander Steffann