There are the beginnings of discussions around that Ian. I think thats a fine thing to discuss too.
-G On 21 January 2015 at 07:50, Dickinson, Ian <[email protected]> wrote: > 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Job > Snijders > Sent: 20 January 2015 17:47 > To: George Michaelson > Cc: [email protected]; 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. >
