[routing-wg] Adding an "exclude-member" field

Hi Ed,

Thanks for both of your emails. What you have said makes sense.

I did actually contact the DB-WG chairs before posting to the routing mailing list. I had seen the same page you linked (https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/numbered-work-items) and asked them on how to proceed. They said that my query relates to only a minor DB change, and has more of an impact on routing policy, so I should take it to the routing WG.

I will take your advice, and go to the DB-WG, and start again.

Kind regards,
James Bensley (he/him)
Inter.link GmbH

Boxhagener Str. 80, 10245 Berlin, Germany
Email: hello at inter.link,
Phone (general): (+49) 030577123821
Phone (mobile): (+49) 015792522412
Registry: Local court Charlottenburg, HRB 138876
Managing directors: Marc Korthaus, Theo Voss

________________________________________
From: Edward Shryane <eshryane at ripe.net>
Sent: 14 November 2023 17:01
To: James Bensley
Cc: Netmaster (exAS286); Nick Hilliard; routing-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [routing-wg] Adding an "exclude-member" field

Hi James,

> On 14 Nov 2023, at 12:14, James Bensley <james at inter.link> wrote:
>
> Hi Markus;
>
>> Or in this particular case: Adding members-exclude to as-set without
>> defining it somewhere "officially" (syntax and semantic) BEFORE, seems
>> to me NOT the right way. (Esp., as the target is to get this into the
>> complete IRR "eco system" and not just into RIPE.)
>
> As I have said multiple times, getting this standardised isn't the sticking point for me. This is:
>
>> - As I said in my email to Markus, if we pretend I got a new draft into GROW and eventually published, "then what?". How does one get that implemented in the RIR DBs (RIPE to start with)?
>
> I think, that you think, I'm against documenting and standardising this. I am not. The big questions for me is, what happens after going to the IETF?
>
> It's a waste of time getting an RFC published if all I can do is print it off and make paper aeroplanes with it. So the question is, what comes after that? Just because there is an RFC, would RIPE implement? What is required for them to implement it? Do they need any additional documentation or testing? Does the RIPE RIPE DB docs website need updating too? Would I have to request that?
>
> There is no point talking about getting this standardised, if RIPE wouldn't implement it, and I can't find any information on what is required in order for RIPE to implement this.
>

The DB-WG uses Numbered Work Items to keep track of feature requests: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/numbered-work-items

Firstly a problem statement is published on the DB-WG for discussion.

Once there is agreement on a problem definiton and solution, the RIPE NCC will work on an implementation plan, development and deployment.

For example, see the "Geofeed" feature that was implemented in 2021, which was defined in an RFC (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9092/) and tracked in NWI-13.

Regards
Ed Shryane
RIPE NCC