On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:55:05PM +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
I am trying to understand how this change could {help,hinder} the APNIC problem of route objects which reference differently maintained AS and Inetnum objects, and the added complication of AS being vested from RIPE and Inetnum from APNIC.
Can you elaborate on what the problem precisely is?
I think stripping/changing the notify-on-ref mail might hinder this. It would be materially useful to preserve it, should exported IRR state be used at another site aggregating data, to contact the prime information manager.
To contact the owner of a resource there are other mechanisms (abuse-c, admin-c, contact-c, etc). I would deem the notify-on-ref email address only relevant for communication between the registry and the email address being notified. It should not concern others who is notified when a resource is referenced.
I suspect RPSS/RPSAUTH issues are out of scope. Within one IRR/RPSL data set, I think the notify-on-ref thing would help the APNIC problem: it would make it easier for non-related maintainer to understand changes were being made in routing by address holders who want their AS to be in a route object, and participate.
I am not sure I follow which problem or concern you are addresssing. Can you maybe use an example? Kind regards, Job