[db-wg] Further cleanup (was: RIPE NONAUTH route(6) objects using unregistered space cleanup - deployment *today*)

In message <4F1ED65A-D179-489F-8CC0-D9F797534147 at ucd.ie>, 
Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> wrote:

>I think the first step is to decide what, in principle, distinguishes
>“rotten” from “sound” ROUTE(6) objects, and to establish consensus on
>this principle.

I admit to being rather entirely stunned and flummoxed.

Is there seriously any ambiguity or controversy here?

Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing
the *public* use of ASNs that are reserved, and that have been reserved,
by various RFC(s), since time immemorial (e.g. 65535)?

Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing
the *public* use of ASNs that have -never- been assigned by any RIR to
any party?

Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing
the *public* use of ASNs whose registrations have been revoked by the
applicable RIR, e.g. due to either the non-payment of fees, or worse,
due to outright fraud on the part of the relevant registrant?

How would any of these usage scenarios do anything other than to damage
the credibility and the reliability of the RIPE data base?  How would
any of these usage scenarios do anything other than to -reduce- the
stability of the Internet?

Could we please cut the crap and the speculative hand waving?  Show me
some -actual- example where keeping any of this garbage in the data base
materially helps anyone.


Regards,
rfg