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

[Phetulo Dhlamini]

Dear Hendrik,

If I have misstated the current RIPE Database behaviour, then I have no
objection to correcting that point. My argument does not depend on that
particular example.

Likewise, I cited the GROW Internet-Draft because it discusses operational
considerations around hierarchical authorisation across IRRs, not because
an Internet-Draft has normative status. Whether or not that draft was
ultimately adopted does not, on its own, determine whether the underlying
technical observation is valid.

The central issue remains unchanged.

The proposal establishes naming and authorisation within the AFRINIC IRR.
What it does not explicitly define is the scope of the assurance that
follows from that naming convention. If the proposal's intent is limited to
AFRINIC object creation, then I believe the policy should say so
explicitly. If broader operational benefits are being relied upon in
support of the proposal, then those benefits should also be demonstrated
explicitly.

My concern has never been whether hierarchical naming is useful within
AFRINIC. It is whether the policy clearly defines what assurance it
provides and, equally importantly, what assurance it does not provide.
Clear policy language reduces differing interpretations and avoids
attributing properties to the proposal that are outside its stated scope.

For that reason, I continue to believe that clarifying the proposal's
guarantees would strengthen it, regardless of the examples used during this
discussion.

Regards,

Phetulo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260730/7bb80f98/attachment-0001.html>