Well, even if you do not want to change the status quo then this complaint has one undoubtful point: This whole BCP (whatever that includes in detail) is nowhere documented. It is now, since Anand replied to the list, in <68c1d8f7-7b0b-a5d0-d1 ed-d75f215624d2@ripe.net> .
I suggest that we perform the absolute minimum of policy footwork to endorse this procedure as is. Because I feel we have a strong if not absolute consensus for carrying on as usual from those who spoke up here.
I'm a tad rusty on procedure here, so others will have to help with how we continue.
Regards,
Ok, thanks everyone for the input - i do see that the negative effects of combining auth. resolver with open recurses outweight the positive ones now. I wouldnt have started all this if there was documentation about requirements for reverse delegation nameservers somewhere. I do know that time ago there were no open resolver checks (or they didnt work properly), so my assumption was that this was silently introduced (since i didnt find any "changelog"). Now that Anand has provided insight on how RIPE does its checks, this should be easy to find for any upcoming questions. I do agree with Mans that there is no new policy etc needed and we can move on. - Jonas