Subject: Re: draft of RPS meeting minutes

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 23:56:30 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Cengiz Alaettinoglu writes:
> 
> I did minor editing of the minutes and I am about to send it to the
> list. One question:
> 
> Curtis Villamizar ([email-masked]) on December 10:
> >     The default for reclaim/no-reclaim is currently implied to be
> >     no-reclaim but should be explicitly stated and should be reclaim.
> 
> I thought we decided to make it explicit but keep it as no-reclaim?
> 
> Cengiz

Did I reply to this?  I added the list to the Cc for comment from the
whole WG.

All existing route objects do not have this field and the behavior is
no-reclaim.  That was my reason for favoring no-reclaim.

I thought at the meeting RIPE wanted reclaim because in effect being
able to edit the database with an editor or change any maintainer in
the database at will gives them reclaim.  They'd rather see the
default be reclaim.  This also follows some existing BCPs.

We've been back and forth on this so many times I forget where we
ended up on any given day.

reclaim?  no-reclaim?  ???  rps-auth needs a decision.

Curtis