[routing-wg] WG chairs and year-old minutes...

Hi,

I assume you are talking about cross-registry authorisation for creation
of route objects?

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:17:24PM -0200, George Michaelson wrote:
> I am getting a sense DB-WG is thinking about RPSL, the DB and the problem.
> I say this, because Its always amused me there are two WG to discuss one
> problem depending on how you approach it. If you come at it
> routing-centric, its in the routing WG. if you come at it as a DB
> proponent, its in the DB-WG. If you come at it as how RPSL is used, its a
> routing problem. if you come at it as how RPSL is implemented, its a DB
> problem.
> 
> So.. maybe this is a time to say "hmm. is it time we had a joint sitting of
> parliament, both houses, to discuss the issue" and deal with it jointly, so
> both sides agree on what is, or is not, a problem?

In a recent meeting between DB-WG Chairs & RIPE NCC staff, we as DB-WG
chairs requested that RIPE NCC create a proposal to provide cross-RIR
authorisation for at least APNIC, RIPE & AFRINIC (given the common
codebase).

During the discussion at least one very important prerequisite came up:
we need to flatten the maintainer namespace between these three
registries. E.g. if SNIJDERS-MNT exists in RIPE NCC's DB it should not
exist in the other two.

Kind regards,

Job