Hi Cynthia, do you have any idea what may have caused this? I'd say this is likely an issue with the implementation of the proposal, not with the proposal itself.
Matthias Merkel Staclar, Inc. ________________________________ From: Cynthia Revström <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 2:49 PM To: Matthias Merkel <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Proposal to revert NWI-10 This is not my point, yes I could easily ask them to fix my specific case. My point is that I very much doubt I am the only one who has this issue, and I only noticed it as I was looking on bgp.he.net<http://bgp.he.net> and noticed the GB flag. - Cynthia On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:48 PM Matthias Merkel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Cynthia, ORG-ISSA10-RIPE is your LIR, right? It does indeed look like it should have a country attribute of Sweden. Did you ask the NCC about this already? Did they mention any reason for it being GB? Matthias Merkel Staclar, Inc. ________________________________ From: Cynthia Revström <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 2:40 PM To: Matthias Merkel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Proposal to revert NWI-10 Hi Matthias, Well before NWI-10 there was no proper definition, but there is now a definition, and as a result the RIPE NCC updated the resources to GB whereas the LIR is quite obviously SE. - Cynthia On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:16 PM Matthias Merkel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Cynthia, Could you please elaborate on why the data is now invalid (what you think it is supposed to be, what it is now and what situation is causing it to be this way)? My understanding is that there was never a “proper” definition of the country field. Matthias Merkel Staclar, Inc. From: db-wg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Cynthia Revström via db-wg Sent: Monday, 7 December 2020 14:04 To: DB-WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Proposal to revert NWI-10 To clarify, when I said "messed up the data on my resources" I meant that the delegated file now has invalid data. And invalid data that is supposed to be correct is a lot worse than incorrect data that is just provided by the resource holder. - Cynthia On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 1:58 PM Cynthia Revström <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Apologies if this email is a bit impolite. >From the start NWI-10 seemed like a pointless policy to me and just a policy >that was made because the db-wg wanted to make more policies. But as it has already messed up the data on my resources, I see it as a policy that messes up data and wastes time for no real advantage. Hence I suggest that we revert NWI-10 unless someone actually has a good reason for why the legal address needs to match the delegated file, and how to implement it in a non-messy way. - Cynthia
