/me wrote on Tuesday, November 15, 2022 9:46 AM:
Coming back to your original question
James Bensley asked on Monday, November 7, 2022 10:02 AM:
"what it would take to allow the use of the "::" indicator in the "members" field of an AS-SET and Route-Set so that in my own AS-SET I can specify the correct source for the direct members":
I would say, get RFC2622 updated. And I fear, likely this will not going to happen very soon or fast or maybe not at all, as the new notation is not backward compatible.
Just to be more constructive and as written before (but as stated before, I'll not propose it "officially" as it looks a bit clumsy and is based on "unwritten rules" and I think it's more worth to put some efforts in some better and more formal and final solution than "lifting" IRR): Rather prepending set names with RR::, you could propose to the wider (than RIPE) community to read set names ending in e.g. "-AUTH-IN-RR" or ":AS-AUTH-IN-RR" to be treated as "only valid if source of this object is RR". That will not violate the naming convention of set names / RFC2622. It's backward compatible. Nothing breaks or anyone needs to update anything. Smarter tools (or IRRD if asked to do so) could then verify if the set's source is the stated RR. Even if someone else would register the same set name in another open RR, it wouldn't be considered (by the right tools) as the authoritative one. But it looks ugly (too many letters around your great company name), doesn't prevent some unknowledgeable persons -following some "as-sets for dummies" guides- to register something like AS-FOO:AS-AUTH-IN-RIPE in RADB and shooting themselves in the foot and it requires a more or less informal agreement across a wider group of tool developers and users. [And likely more ...] And -but that's true for any solution- you need to get people update their as set, update upstreams, customers, peers, IXes, various objects, Web entries, [...] and use new tooling, understanding the ending people agreed on. Markus