This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/routing-wg@ripe.net/
[routing-wg] Notification/authorisation of references to aut-num from other RPSL objects
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Notification/authorisation of references to aut-num from other RPSL objects
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Notification/authorisation of references to aut-num from other RPSL objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Tue Jun 10 21:13:17 CEST 2014
Hi Job, > I think some notification feature would be nice to have, but we need to > figure out what and when we expect notifications. > > I propose we dub the attribute for nice alignment with existing > attributes: > > notify-on-ref: <email-address> optional, multi-valued > > Questions: > > - do you want a notification each time an object is updated and has > a reference to your object? Strong no > - or do you only want notifications when a reference inititally is > added to an object? (spares you a daily mailbomb for daily updated > objects) Yes > - do you want a notification when the reference is removed from an > object? Yes > - In what classes do you want to set a notify-on-ref attribute? (I > think initially aut-num, as-set, rd-set) Ack > - do we want the notify-on-ref email addresses to be set to > unread at ripe.net upon NRTM/ftp export? No strong opinion on this one. I would say yes, unless someone comes up with a reason not to. > Regarding authorisation, for me requiring authorisation to reference a > given object is a bridge too far at this point in time. Quite some > operators automatically generate an autnum, route-sets & as-sets on a > daily basis to reject their policy, and I don't see an easy way to make > this a painless adventure. Let's first do notifications and based on > those experiences look further. ok? Yes, that sounds reasonable. Needing authorisation to be allowed to put information in the policy sounds like a good way to discourage people from updating/using them altogether. Let's not make things more difficult unless we really need to. Cheers! Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Notification/authorisation of references to aut-num from other RPSL objects
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Notification/authorisation of references to aut-num from other RPSL objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]