[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
Geoff Huston wrote:
> 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"
My guess is that it would pretty much meet the needs of what's being
requested at the bottom line. I presume it includes all records of
transfers and not just the previous holder? That was strongly emphasised
as needs from operators in Japan.
(I did get a feedback that it would be nice to have a whowas equivalent
but I don't think people will be too picky about the format)
> 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.
yes, that's the basic idea.
These information would help in being aware of the risks/the work it
takes when obtaining space.
A simple text log may be okay to start with, which I imagine wouldn't
add too much burden on the secretariat.
izumi
