[db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 05:52:12PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Job Snijders via db-wg wrote on 20/11/2022 13:07:
> > I'd argue that the rules for what constitute valid hierarchical names
> > should not be changed; so the second component of the name doesn't need
> > to start with 'AS-'.
> 
> you mean "does need to start with 'AS-'"?  I don't see how rfc2622 allows
> naked terms, or how that would allow rpsl consumers to determine what type
> of set a specific named item was.

Errr... yes, thank you for the cluebat, Nick.

When I sent the email I thought perhaps "AS15562:AS15562:AS-THING" might
also be valid; but upon further reflection Section 5 of RFC 2622 also
specifies at least 1 component needs to have the 'AS-' prefix (because,
as you suggest, otherwise one can't infer the set type); which would
mean that you can't create AS15562:AS15562:AS-THING (because you can't
create AS15562:AS15562 against which it would be authorized).

Kind regards,

Job