Re: [arin-ppml] [Ext] Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A - Seeking Community Comments

2019-07-17 Thread Marco Schmidt
Hello, Just to confirm Leo's observation. For each RIPE document, you can find on our website in the metadata on the righthand side in chronological order which previous versions were updated by that version. If the document was obsoleted by another document, the metadata will also show that.

Re: [arin-ppml] [Ext] Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A - Seeking Community Comments

2019-07-16 Thread Leo Vegoda
On 7/16/19, 11:02 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: [...] > Leo, Open many RIPE-NNN documents which are old. You will not find anything > in it stating “Obsoleted by RIPE-XXX”. > > Open similar RIPE-XXX document which obsoletes RIPE-NNN. You will not find > anything in it stating “Obsoletes RIPE-N

Re: [arin-ppml] [Ext] Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A - Seeking Community Comments

2019-07-16 Thread Owen DeLong
> On Jul 16, 2019, at 10:21 , Leo Vegoda wrote: > > On 7/15/19, 12:40 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Owen DeLong" > wrote: >> Yes… It would be nice if RIPE would move to a system similar to the other >> RIRs where there >> is a single comprehensive policy document which is amended through the

Re: [arin-ppml] [Ext] Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A - Seeking Community Comments

2019-07-16 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
Actually I think there is something what we are missing in RIPE (copied Marco on this), that will be very useful. A web page as a kind of "ToC" with all the links to all policies, may be ordered thematically (for example). There is something close: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-p

Re: [arin-ppml] [Ext] Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A - Seeking Community Comments

2019-07-16 Thread Leo Vegoda
On 7/15/19, 12:40 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Owen DeLong" wrote: > Yes… It would be nice if RIPE would move to a system similar to the other > RIRs where there >is a single comprehensive policy document which is amended through the PDP > rather than >their current RFC (usually without