[routing-wg] Notification/authorisation of references to aut-num from other RPSL objects

I am trying to understand how this change could {help,hinder} the APNIC
problem of route objects which reference differently maintained AS and
Inetnum objects, and the added complication of AS being vested from RIPE
and Inetnum from APNIC.

I think stripping/changing the notify-on-ref mail might hinder this. It
would be materially useful to preserve it, should exported IRR state be
used at another site aggregating data, to contact the prime information
manager.

I suspect RPSS/RPSAUTH issues are out of scope. Within one IRR/RPSL data
set, I think the notify-on-ref thing would help the APNIC problem: it would
make it easier for non-related maintainer to understand changes were being
made in routing by address holders who want their AS to be in a route
object, and participate.

-George



On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/attachments/20140611/95918017/attachment.html>