On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Dan Luedtke <maildanrl@gmail.com> wrote:
<provoking>I don't see how anyone can be against this
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:54:59PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: proposal.</provoking>
I don't see the real world benefit of the proposal, there are
insufficient
arguments for it, and I'm therefore with Tore on this one.
(So now you perhaps see how anyone _can_ be against it.)
Uh. Can you please be a bit more explicit, as not everybody might remember Tore's stance on this?
Oh, I'm terribly sorry, that was extremely clumsy of me! Tore's stance is here: http://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/address-policy-wg/2012-September/007063.html
I take it that you are opposing the proposal? Any variant of the proposal, or would you support the "publish, but anonymize rejected transfers" option?
The stance that I'm agreeing with is regarding publication of rejected transfers and rejected pre-approvals, so "publish, but anonymize rejected transfers/pre-approvals" is good with me. And, for the record, I agree with the notion that the NCC may: - publish aggregates - historical versions of alloclist.txt without any change in policy.
It's a bit hard for the chairs to figure out which way to go if opinions are not stated clearly...
Yes, absolutely, and I apologize for being fuzzy. This is one of the times where a "me, too" is insufficient. :) -- Jan