I have no comment on WG chair. But on the other matter... I am getting a sense DB-WG is thinking about RPSL, the DB and the problem. I say this, because Its always amused me there are two WG to discuss one problem depending on how you approach it. If you come at it routing-centric, its in the routing WG. if you come at it as a DB proponent, its in the DB-WG. If you come at it as how RPSL is used, its a routing problem. if you come at it as how RPSL is implemented, its a DB problem. So.. maybe this is a time to say "hmm. is it time we had a joint sitting of parliament, both houses, to discuss the issue" and deal with it jointly, so both sides agree on what is, or is not, a problem? -G On 20 January 2015 at 15:11, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:

Hi all,

Subsequent to the meeting in London, we asked for any comments on the minutes from the previous meeting, RIPE 68. There were none, so I’m going to ask the NCC to mark them as final.

< http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/2014-November/002809.htm l>

Joao also announced during the London meeting that he would be standing down as chair of this working group. With that in mind, I’d like to ask anybody interested in taking on the co-chair role to send a message to Joao and myself via <routing-wg-chairs@ripe.net>.

The job description for WG chairs is largely described in RIPE-542, but this is slightly out-of-date: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542>

As you’re no doubt aware, we and all the other working groups have to have a process for chair replacement. We issued a very simple suggested text back in September:

< http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/2014-September/002769.ht ml>

Whilst there were few comments on this, I’m aware that other working groups have had significant discussion about the process, and bringing this up again is going to lead to a slightly more involved process.

I suggest that for this iteration we keep it simple and try to reach consensus on a candidate, but to avoid too much duplicated effort, if there is significant feeling within then WG that a more rigid process is required, we try and reach agreement to borrow one (a process, not a chairperson) from another WG rather than reinvent the wheel.

I’ll step down at RIPE 71 or 72 to exercise this new process.

That’s all for the administrivia, if anybody wants to go back to talking about cross-RIR routing registry authentication, fire away!

Cheers, Rob