[routing-wg]2008-04 New Policy Proposal (Using the Resource Public Key Infrastructure to Construct Validated IRR Data)

>> who signs as-set:?  
> 
> If the as-set has a hierarchical name (as described in RFC 2725 and
> possibly elsewhere) then the signer would be the AS holder of the AS
> named in the hierarchical name form, wouldn't it?

nice theory.  not reality.

>> how does maintainer map to anything in rpki?
> 
> I would've thought, after looking through the RFCs that explored this
> topic back in 1999 - 2000, that the maintainer of a inetnum object would
> be the address holder, the maintainer of the aut-num object would be the
> as number holder, and the maintainer of the route object would be the
> address holder, which would map back into the RPKI

except the reality of irr use does not always match that.

>>> What classes of IRR objects could be generated using the approach of
>>> generating IRR objects from RPKI data?
>>
>> route:
> 
> I'm still wondering if that is a sufficient subset of the IRR
> information set.

i'll take 80% of the gain for NONE of the pain, which is what ruediger's
proposal provides.

for those using the irr to generate filters, not changing tools is
critical.  we know how non-maintained irrd and ratoolset are, and we
know how much it will cost us to touch our custom tools.  ruediger's
brilliant hack eliminates all those concerns.

randy