On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 9:45 AM Tore Anderson <
tore@fud.no> wrote:
Hi Denis,
On 11/01/24 03:20, denis walker wrote:
> This is total madness. You keep saying you have no intention of
> changing anything else. You keep saying the wording change actually
> changes nothing in practice. Some other people don't agree with you.
> Just don't change wording that you claim changes NOTHING and has
> nothing to do with aggregation and everyone is happy. The fact that
> you are pushing so hard to make this wording change, you refuse to
> back down or compromise, you insist on changing wording that changes
> nothing and has nothing to do with aggregation...proves that you don't
> believe that yourself. The fact is, I suspect that this is the real
> change you want. You want to drop the current policy requirement to
> define assignments with End User contacts. It is the aggregation that
> is the side issue here. There is no other explanation for why you are
> insisting so strongly on changing wording that changes nothing.
Here we find ourselves in conspiracy theory land, frankly.
Uh. While questioning your motives is perhaps a bit rude, this is WAY over the top, Tore.
Please retract this weird accusation, I really don't understand your motives for trying to label this as having to do with a conspiracy theory. It tarnishes the discussion.
It makes zero
sense, too:
If our ulterior goal was to remove the End User contacts from our own
assignments we can just go ahead and do so, right now. The RIPE NCC is
already on the record saying that's totally OK, and we would be
following in the footsteps of many other LIRs who have already done so.
Why on Earth would we waste our time on a policy proposal?
If our ulterior goal was to remove the End User contacts from other
LIRs' assignments, 2023-04 simply doesn't accomplish this goal, because
it conveys no requirement on LIRs to remove anything from the database
whatsoever.
The RIPE NCC has not identified any unintended or ulterior side effect
caused by 2023-04 either, does that mean they are a part of the
conspiracy too?
While you seem to argue that the RIPE NCC is both omniscient and omnicompetent, I do not think it is that easy.
I simply think that the RIPE NCC and you are mistaken.
Continously appealing to RIPE NCC as the authority of policy and policy interpretation is not a good thing.
It undermines the community drive behind policies.
If this is where we are going, it seems that we would be just as well off by letting EU politicians run the show.