Hello Sasha, James! Hello everyone! P.S: I tried sending this same email to grow@ietf.org on 2025-02-24, but I believe the message must not have met some mail list requirement. Sorry for that.
This is my first interaction with IETF lists, so I apologize in advance if I am not familiar with the communication protocols, or even if my English is not the best. And if you notice that I am making these communication errors, I would be grateful if you could guide me on the correct way to do it. Regarding the RPSL registry scoped draft, I thank you and congratulate you on the proposal. However, I believe there are some additions that should be considered. In a very summarized way, I understood that the proposal deals with the creation of the src-members attribute in AS-SETs and ROUTE-SETs objects. This attribute and rules will allow the elimination of ambiguities regarding which IRR base the object in question should belong to. As I said, I thought the proposal was excellent! However, the first thing that came to mind when I read about the creation of this attribute was the lack of creation of the member-of attribute equivalent to this hierarchical model. The suggestion here is to create a src-member-of attribute, with the same precedence and validation logic proposed for src-member, but equivalent to (mp-)member objects. Although I am aware that today there is no effective use of this attribute for cross-validation of the actual belonging of the object to the collection that mentions it, this is the method provided for by previous RFCs for such cross-check. As was mentioned in the introduction to versions 00 and 01 of this draft. In my opinion, not including an equivalent of the member-of attribute in this hierarchical model would mean breaking the functioning of this functionality provided for in the RFCs originating from RPSL and IRR. I even believe that the lack of adoption of this cross-validation mechanism by maintainers over time is largely due to the impossibility of referencing objects from other databases in the original data models. For now, these are the statements I have about this draft. I am still trying to better imagine how the transition methods between the two types of attributes will work. I believe this topic can be better outlined, but I do not yet have a reasonable suggestion in mind. Mostrar texto das mensagens anteriores Em sex., 21 de fev. de 2025, 08:23, Sasha Romijn <sa...@reliablycoded.nl> escreveu: > Hello, > > We would like share our draft "Registry scoped members for RPSL set > objects" with the working group: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-romijn-grow-rpsl-registry-scoped-members/ > > This draft addresses the ambiguity of references between sets in RPSL, > where currently one set includes another by its RPSL primary key. As the > same primary key may exist in multiple IRR registries, these references are > ambiguous, while the referred objects sometimes have very different > contents. > > The draft adds a new attribute where references to other sets must be > scoped to a specific IRR registry. Specific resolving and validation rules > ensure that we keep backwards compatibility with older RPSL objects, > authoritative servers, and resolvers. At the same time, it provides > benefits even with partial deployment. > > We welcome your feedback and discussion. > > Sasha and James > > > On 21 Feb 2025, at 12:20, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > A new version of Internet-Draft > draft-romijn-grow-rpsl-registry-scoped-members-01.txt has been successfully > submitted by Sasha Romijn and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-romijn-grow-rpsl-registry-scoped-members > Revision: 01 > Title: Registry scoped members for RPSL set objects > Date: 2025-02-21 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 10 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-romijn-grow-rpsl-registry-scoped-members-01.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-romijn-grow-rpsl-registry-scoped-members/ > HTMLized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-romijn-grow-rpsl-registry-scoped-members > Diff: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-romijn-grow-rpsl-registry-scoped-members-01 > > Abstract: > > This document updates RFC2622 and RFC4012 by specifying src-members, > a new attribute on as-set and route-set objects in the Routing Policy > Specification Language (RPSL). This attribute allows a specific > registry to be defined for each member in a set, avoiding problematic > ambiguity when resolving set members. A new validation rule allows > gradual upgrades and backwards compatibility. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list -- grow@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to grow-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- grow@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to grow-le...@ietf.org
