> On 13 May 2020, at 21:42, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ncc-services-wg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've clearly explained in my email that it was basically a copy and paste
> from another RIR proposal, where they are missing things that in RIPE we have
> solved already. Thinks need to be read in context to make sense, and I think
> it makes sense to openly discuss ideas before coming into proposal, right?
This clarification helps a lot Jordi. Thanks.
However it doesn’t help in a good way from your PoV. If I understand you
correctly, you’re promoting a policy proposal from another RIR which solves a
problem we don’t have in RIPE because it’s already been fixed. Is that correct?
If so, this doesn’t seem to be a sensible way to proceed or make policy.
If we are to openly discuss this idea any further, I think you need to start
with a clear problem statement. What is it that you think needs fixing and how
does this proposal from another RIR do that? It may well fix their problem(s).
I don’t know or care about that. I’d like to know what RIPE problem(s) it fixes.
