Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
Hi Izumi,
I don't know if it helps at all but I was mindful of this need for a
clear "history" of an address in an environment of address transfers
and included in prop-50 the explicit requirement for a public record
of such transactions: "The following transfer details will be
published by APNIC in a public log of resource transfers: - Source -
Recipient - Address resources - Date of transfer"
Whether the precise details are appropriate or not is perhaps a matter
for further thought, but the general need to understand the previous
circumstances of the parties to a transfer in terms of past transfers
where they were a party, and the previous movement of the address
resources in question, is often helpful in understanding whether the
proposed transfer should be regarded with appropriate confidence or
not. Its not all the information one may need, but it appears that it
would be generally helpful information, or at least that what I had
thought would be useful in terms of registry-published information in
such an environment.
regards,
Geoff, author of prop-50 in this case
On 17/02/2009, at 8:57 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
Paul,
Thanks for the response from APNIC.
I understand this is something that requires some considerations and
change in the way APNIC provides data to the community.
It's difficult for me to see if the needs are specific to Japan or can
be commonly share as the region, so I'd be interested to hear what the
others say in Manila too.
izumi
