<div dir="ltr">There are the beginnings of discussions around that Ian. I think thats a fine thing to discuss too.<div> </div><div>-G</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On 21 January 2015 at 07:50, Dickinson, Ian <<a href="mailto:Ian.Dickinson@bskyb.com" target="_blank">Ian.Dickinson@bskyb.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If we're looking at this sort of thing, perhaps we can also look at getting the IRR objects defined in RDAP too? Ian -----Original Message----- From: routing-wg [mailto:<a href="mailto:routing-wg-bounces@ripe.net">routing-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a>] On Behalf Of Job Snijders Sent: 20 January 2015 17:47 To: George Michaelson Cc: <a href="mailto:routing-wg@ripe.net">routing-wg@ripe.net</a>; Rob Evans Subject: Re: [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 Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. British Sky Broadcasting Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. </blockquote></div> </div>