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.

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

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