Hello,

> Two weeks ago Emilio published the revised version of 2011-06 and the
> RIPE NCC Impact Analysis. I was hoping that this would answer some of
> the questions that were raised in the discussion phase and prompt
> further discussion of the proposal, but this hasn't happened.

Since you asked for it...

Even considering Tobias' comments on the topic, I'm still not happy that
the overlapping with the IRT objects is not adressed before mudding the
RIPE DB further. And generally speaking, creating new data because of
access restrictions on existing data seems weird.

This said, reading the Impact Analysis I see two points that worries me.

Under A.: "The "abuse-c:" attribute must reference a role object".

The policy text does not specify 'role'. And I see no good reason for
the NCC to interpret the policy that way. (btw, if a policy needs
interpretation even before it is implemented then maybe it might need
some refining)

Under C, phase two: I was under the impression that the policy was to be
voluntary at first, and that the mandatory part was to be discussed
further on, ideally with some information about the uptake of the
object. Now I missed when the restrictive appeared in v.2 of the draft
appeared...so be it. But now "The RIPE NCC will also plan to
decommission irt objects...".

So if the current, short and simple, policy text is used to sneak in
undiscussed features via the impact analysis I have no choice but to
object.

Best regards,
Gilles

--
Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU
6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg
tel: (+352) 424409
fax: (+352) 422473