[db-wg] re-evaluate route-object authorisation model

On 27 June 2015 at 09:17, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 06:32:10AM +0200, George Michaelson wrote:
> > > > and note that, with one mouth, job has said that the ripe irr is the
> > > > only one he will trust.
> > >
> > > Unsure if i follow you exactly, but indeed, I only trust the RIPE IRR
> > > when it comes to RIPE managed space.
> >
> > Why then, do you expect anyone to trust RIPE IRR for all the un-RIPE
> > managed space which can be freely added, to permit RIPE managed space
> > related objects to be made?
>
> I don't recall expecting that? Did i in some earlier email forget to
> insert a criticial 'not' in a sentence or something?
>

So those route objects which refer to RIPE managed space, and non-RIPE
managed space. Do you filter them out? The ones which have non-RIPE objects
inserted?

I thought you meant that if it was in the RIPE IRR you trusted it. I didn't
realize you were performing a post-check on the origination of the referred
elements in route and other objects.

Sorry

_G



>
> > Surely from a consistency point of view (and yes, its reductionist,
> > but so is software) this means we shouldn't be trusting all the
> > additional objects added 'for your convenience' under the open
> > password maintainer?
>
> Yes, the open password maintainer is a thorn in our side. Relevant to
> the discussion: https://ripe70.ripe.net/archives/video/132/ (Title is
> actually 'IRR Homing project')
>

If we're clear that a goal is to stop having it, and by implication stop
having out-of-region data inserted into the RIPE IRR Thats good!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20150627/33b3d496/attachment.html>