On Feb 5, 2016, at 10:52 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
>> Can you explain in layman terms what the legal consequences of this
>> change are?
>
> Hi Job,
>
> In layman's terms, the difference is that you're now free to deal with
> the RPKI TA
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
> Can you explain in layman terms what the legal consequences of this
> change are?
Hi Job,
In layman's terms, the difference is that you're now free to deal with
the RPKI TAL the same way you deal with the legal issues surrounding
access to A
On Feb 5, 2016, at 8:44 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:15:29PM +, John Curran wrote:
>> One of the concerns raised at a previous NANOG was with respect to the
>> need for an RPKI relying parties to explicitly accept ARIN's relying
>> party agreement (RP
Dear John,
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:15:29PM +, John Curran wrote:
> One of the concerns raised at a previous NANOG was with respect to the
> need for an RPKI relying parties to explicitly accept ARIN's relying
> party agreement (RPA) - note that this has now been changed (per the
> attached
NANOGers -
One of the concerns raised at a previous NANOG was with
respect to the need for an RPKI relying parties to explicitly
accept ARIN's relying party agreement (RPA) - note that this
has now been changed (per the attached announcement)
Wile the RPA terms remain the
5 matches
Mail list logo