On 27 June 2015 at 09:17, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 06:32:10AM +0200, George Michaelson wrote:
> > > and note that, with one mouth, job has said that the ripe irr is the
> > > only one he will trust.
> >
> > Unsure if i follow you exactly, but indeed, I only trust the RIPE IRR
> > when it comes to RIPE managed space.
>
> Why then, do you expect anyone to trust RIPE IRR for all the un-RIPE
> managed space which can be freely added, to permit RIPE managed space
> related objects to be made?

I don't recall expecting that? Did i in some earlier email forget to
insert a criticial 'not' in a sentence or something?

So those route objects which refer to RIPE managed space, and non-RIPE managed space. Do you filter them out? The ones which have non-RIPE objects inserted?

I thought you meant that if it was in the RIPE IRR you trusted it. I didn't realize you were performing a post-check on the origination of the referred elements in route and other objects.

Sorry

> Surely from a consistency point of view (and yes, its reductionist,
> but so is software) this means we shouldn't be trusting all the
> additional objects added 'for your convenience' under the open
> password maintainer?

Yes, the open password maintainer is a thorn in our side. Relevant to
the discussion: https://ripe70.ripe.net/archives/video/132/ (Title is
actually 'IRR Homing project')

If we're clear that a goal is to stop having it, and by implication stop having out-of-region data inserted into the RIPE IRR Thats good!