Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F5A12D0A6 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 01:43:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.186 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zVIfsLYw9FhN for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 01:43:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mahimahi.ripe.net (mahimahi.ripe.net [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ECC312D78C for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 01:43:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by mahimahi.ripe.net 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 sslvpn.ripe.net ([193.0.20.230] helo=vpn-133.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net 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: <76dad5c8-114a-19fe-6fc2-cf3c45e0f666@bbn.com> <227BF007-90BD-4301-A349-FC01A1A5969A@ripe.net> 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-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org 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 --Apple-Mail=_D29A4F0A-1B4C-464D-8ED8-34A9609D1C02 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Steve, > On 26 Jul 2016, at 20:41, Stephen Kent wrote: >=20 >> 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. Tim --Apple-Mail=_D29A4F0A-1B4C-464D-8ED8-34A9609D1C02 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Hi Steve,

On 26 Jul 2016, at 20:41, = Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> 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.


Tim



= --Apple-Mail=_D29A4F0A-1B4C-464D-8ED8-34A9609D1C02--