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
