Dear Robert, On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 05:24:34PM +0200, Robert Kisteleki wrote: > On 2015-05-13 11:24, Job Snijders wrote: > > > Yesterday during the birds of a feather session about "cross-registry > > authorisation" the idea to relax the authorisation requirements for > > route-object creation was brought up (again). I ask this group to further > > explore. > > To be fair, there were a total of four alternatives presented, of which the > above was one. I had the feeling in the room that all alternatives had > supporters as well as opposers. Maybe it'd be fair to explore the other > alternatives at the same depth as well?
Yes, that is an excellent idea and I intend to do that. Personally I am very interested in the RDAP approach as I feel that the end result for the community could be a seamless experience when registering non-local-RIR resources. I received feedback from various operators this morning that they would like to be able to manage their resources from all over the global in a single database/service. I transposed that feedback to "Would be nice if you could submit an object to your favorite RIR, which then in the backend routes the objects to the correct space and handles validation" I will not persue my vague 'flat maintainer' approach in favor of RDAP. If an approach turns out to be a dead-end we can always return. I hope Tim can be interested to write down some more details about the RPKI Signature approach, I am very interested in leveraging RPKI for other things then just ROA's, but I suspect Tim will be pre-occupied so we might have to wait a little bit. Kind regards, Job
