Randy Bush wrote:
Coming back after stating my general support yesterday, to one of the individual issues that may benefit from changes:
I don't remember who already pointed fingers at the ROA service (thanks!), but we - eventually - may have a pretty convincing carrot by offering the "Certification of these data;" (which I read as being ROA and future friends) only to LHRs that have established a formal relationship and are paying for the service according to 2.1 ... 2.4.
Certification is a service that has been developed recently by the RIRs, so IMO there is no legacy "right" here. This would apply for the cases described in 2.5 and certainly 2.6.
< as one of the proposers >
this carrot is not accidental. your first paragraph would seem to indicate that you would prefer to dilute this encouragement to form a formal relationship? am i misreading?
Yes, I think so :-( Trying again: in 1.1., there's a taxative list of services that includes Cerification, while 2.6 states: "In such a case, the RIPE NCC will *continue to provide those registry services which are already being provided* in respect of the Legacy Internet Resource or Resources involved, and may update the related entries in the RIPE Database from time to time to correspond to current actual situation." I read that as including Certification per the list in 1.1, or am *I* misrading here?
randy
Wilfried