On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 05:52:12PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Job Snijders via db-wg wrote on 20/11/2022 13:07: > > I'd argue that the rules for what constitute valid hierarchical names > > should not be changed; so the second component of the name doesn't need > > to start with 'AS-'. > > you mean "does need to start with 'AS-'"? I don't see how rfc2622 allows > naked terms, or how that would allow rpsl consumers to determine what type > of set a specific named item was.
Errr... yes, thank you for the cluebat, Nick. When I sent the email I thought perhaps "AS15562:AS15562:AS-THING" might also be valid; but upon further reflection Section 5 of RFC 2622 also specifies at least 1 component needs to have the 'AS-' prefix (because, as you suggest, otherwise one can't infer the set type); which would mean that you can't create AS15562:AS15562:AS-THING (because you can't create AS15562:AS15562 against which it would be authorized). Kind regards, Job -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
