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

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:35:40PM -0200, George Michaelson wrote:
> Yes, thats exactly the kind of thing I am talking about, and I welcome
> your initiative, and I think its good its exposed here so routing-wg
> people can reflect on it. Clearly, its not only a DB-WG question!

Sorry, that was not clear to me. :-)

> The other part of the story is a concern I have heard stated in DB-WG
> that 'referential integrity' is very hard to maintain in a database
> when it refers to external objects, which may cease to exist
> asynchronously because the constraint cannot be maintained between
> disparate independent sources.
> I think that problem is a general problem, and cannot be fixed. I
> worry, that this may be a 'blocker' for some people.

I don't know what you mean with the above paragraph. Can you maybe
provide an example to illustrate the issue?

> But, I think the "win" in permitting APNIC::named-object references
> inside RIPE and vice-versa is very big.

Currently I prefer to just flatten the namespace for relevant
cross-registry objects, like aut-num, inetnum, route, route6, inet6num,
mntner. This will provide us with tons of benefits without need to
upgrade any tools.

Example: IANA handed down the block which contains AS15562 to RIPE, RIPE
assigned it to me. It should not exist in the APNIC database (or any
other IRR), not even as APNIC::AS15562. Same goes for IP space.

However I don't feel religious about this direction and look forward to
discussion.

Maybe we should organise a "cross-registry authentication" BOF at the
next RIPE meeting where RIPE, APNIC & AFRINIC staff + stakeholders from
db-wg & routing-wg?

Kind regards,

Job