[rpd] Subject is [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

inline....

On 7/17/2026 7:27 PM, Nonjabulo Sphilile wrote:
[snip]
> The burden of proof belongs to those proposing new rules,

this sounds like you didn't read the problem statement.

> not to 
> everyone else to justify keeping the Internet simpler. Where is the 
> demonstrated operational failure that requires this change?

In the problem statement.

> Where is the 
> evidence that existing AS-SET naming conventions have become inadequate 
> at Internet scale? None has been presented.

In the problem statement.

> Instead, we are asked to accept additional complexity because it appears 
> administratively tidy.

Nope. You missed the other reason. Operational stability.

> Administrative tidiness is not the same as 
> operational necessity.

And the latter was addressed int the ...... problem statement.

> Internet coordination should remain as thin as possible. Every 
> additional rule, naming convention, or procedural expectation expands 
> the policy surface without necessarily improving interoperability or 
> routing security. Complexity accumulates far more easily than it disappears.

Nice text. And true.
Assuming you read the problem statement by now, how would you address it?

> The policy process should resist the temptation to legislate for 
> hypothetical problems.

What is your justification for "hypothetical" ?

Please don't respond without answering this question.


> If there is no demonstrated operational 
> deficiency,

... what if there are ....?

> then introducing additional hierarchy is simply governance 
> expanding into spaces where it has not yet justified its existence.
> 
> For these reasons, I object to the proposal in its current form.

Sorry, with myself having seen and understood the problem statement, I 
couldn't see any of your "reasons"...

Frank Habicht
<grassroots>