AW: [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting

On 28 Apr, 2006, at 12:02, Winfried Haug wrote:

> Hello Titley,
>
> i am a little bit surprised about the wording concerning route  
> objects in
> the ripe database:
>
>
OK, let me comment on this and write down what I think I said, or was  
trying to say:

> F. Modify checks for creation of route: (input from Routing-WG)
>
> 	The checks at the moment are fully compliant with the RFCs so we  
> should
> perhaps change
> 	the RFCs.

*** or the database if we agree to that. ***

> It was suggested that maybe we should be looking at the model
> proposed for
> 	the PKI to allow the overall holder of a block of address space to  
> allow
> objects to be
> 	created, but that the onus finally rests on the holder of the AS  
> number
> object.
*** with this I tried to say that whether the AS announces the prefix  
or not is a decision to be taken by the operator of the AS, not the  
holder of the address space, and that the owner of the address space  
may be allowed to create the object as it, by itself, does not  
directly reflect operations. At least this is how understood the  
points that were brought up during the discussion ***

> 	It was agreed to do nothing and wait for the PKI model to be more  
> fully
> developed.
>

I think it was agreed to take the discussion to the mailing list and  
request more input as there was not much feedback during the session.

Joao