Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

Tim Bruijnzeels <> Thu, 28 July 2016 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F5A12D0A6 for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 01:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.186
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zVIfsLYw9FhN for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 01:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1372]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ECC312D78C for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 01:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <>) id 1bSguZ-000Be0-C2; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:43:24 +0200
Received: from ([] by with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1bSguZ-0005Ky-6Q; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:43:23 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D29A4F0A-1B4C-464D-8ED8-34A9609D1C02"
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:43:22 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Stephen Kent <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --------
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -8.0 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -7.5 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4345]
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a0719e3c771a84a98babcb6651931be3ec6fa
Archived-At: <>
Cc: sidr <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:43:28 -0000

Hi Steve,

> On 26 Jul 2016, at 20:41, Stephen Kent <> wrote:
>> As I said earlier there are circumstances where we as RIPE NCC are bound to reclaim resources from holders against their will. And however "unwanted" this may be by the holder of the resources, this is not because we bear these holders any ill will (and actually in most cases there is no dispute). Reclaiming resources is based on policy discussed in a bottom-up policy development process in our address policy working group. Calling this "adverse" implies that the holder is "right", and RIPE NCC is "wrong" in these cases.
> Use of the term does not imply that the INR holder is right and the CA is wrong. The fact that you keep using RIPE as the example CA suggests, to me, that you are biased and very defensive, in your interpretation of the term.

I keep using RIPE as an example because I am speaking out of my own experience - an experience that I believe is relevant to this discussion. And while I expect that others who act as parent CA, at any level, might share my concern, I don't presume to speak on their behalf.