Hello, On 8/7/24 3:30 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Daniel: please respect that not everything can be hard-coded in rules and policies, and respect the people who make judgement calls in good faith. You may not agree with everything, but there is no need to imply malice or stupidity in your feedback. That is not productive, and not ok.
When disagreeing with what you observe, please first ask what the reason was for people to make the choices they did, take that feedback seriously, and work together to improve the situation for all involved. That is the way this bottom-up community is supposed to work.
In this case, there was *no* discussion from the bottom before limits were implemented. Aplication of limits to single /64 subnet instead of IP address was not even notified [1], even if we are talking about a relatively fundamental functional difference here. In the announcement [1], theres also clearly stated, that the queries will be counted based on IP addresses (again). AUP talks about IP addresses. There's no mention about subnets, end sites etc. That mental exercise followed my complaint. And we're failing in basic (technical!) terminology here. I was happy with form which was announced on maling list in May. And I was really surprised few days back, when I noticed something else is really implemented. And I tried to solve it first with NCC directly, but without success. The form of my messages may not be perfect - but the primary failure, in my opinion, happened somewhere else. This is not how things are done in the bottom-up driven community. - Daniel [1] https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/thread/VNZW422LST24X6I...