October 2006 - db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RE: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type
by Antoin Verschuren 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Oct 03, leo vegoda <leo(a)ripe.net> wrote: > >> Do people find org-type values like IANA, RIR, LIR and so on useful? >> No. What would be the point? As Leo pointed out: Looking back into the mail archives for 2003 and 2004 I think the original purpose was to let people know how close to the End User the registration on a block of IP addresses was. If my memory is correct, the org-type was introduced after it was felt that status attribute values like "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA" or "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR" would overburden the status attribute syntax unnecessarily. One of the possible functionality could be that you'd not like to contact certain organisations holding numberblocks when abuse comes from them since you will know these numbers are distributed in a specific fashon, and you'll probably be not reaching an end user. Don't know if such routines are used. Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

1 0

RE: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type
by Antoin Verschuren 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Niall O'Reilly wrote: > This message has two purposes. > > It is addressed to the ENUM WG with the purpose of determining > consensus in this WG on the proposal from Antoin Verschuren. To let there be no misunderstanding, the final proposal with most consensus so far is: >> In order for ENUM registries to not be misinterpreted in the RIPE >> NCC database, I want to propose to change an organization type to be >> used in the organization object. >> Current organization types are: >> >> IANA >> RIR >> NIR >> LIR >> NON-REGISTRY >> >> I would like this NON-REGISTRY to be changed to OTHER. > > I will declare consensus in the ENUM WG unless objections to Antoin's > proposal are posted on the ENUM WG mailing list before 12:00 UTC on > Thursday, 18 October 2006. Regards, Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren(a)sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type
by leo vegoda 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Hi, I cc'd the Database WG list for input on object syntax. On 3 Oct 2006, at 4:52GMT+02:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: [...] > My point was that not only ENUM registries exists in current internet. > We are .cz domain registry and while I don't have problem with > whatever > label we have in RIPE database (we do have LIR atm), we don't exactly > fall into LIR category (in it's original meaning - ie. ISP). Hence I > could easily imagine that our org-type: would be changed to > REGISTRY to > match reality a bit more. One legal entity might run an LIR, a ccTLD registry and an ENUM registry. Whether you want to identify them as a REGISTRY, a DOMAIN- REGISTRY or something else is dependent on what you want to use the org-type to tell people. Looking back into the mail archives for 2003 and 2004 I think the original purpose was to let people know how close to the End User the registration on a block of IP addresses was. If my memory is correct, the org-type was introduced after it was felt that status attribute values like "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA" or "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR" would overburden the status attribute syntax unnecessarily. Do people find org-type values like IANA, RIR, LIR and so on useful? If not, maybe we just need two values: REGISTRY for IANA, RIRs, LIRs, TLDs and Tier 1 ENUM operators and NON-REGISTRY for everyone else. However, if people really find the hierarchical distinctions in the current org-type values useful, maybe we need some additional granularity for the different kinds of domain registries? If the extra granularity is useful, perhaps we need to allow organisations to have multiple org-type values? That's probably preferable to having multiple objects for a single organisation. Thoughts? -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

2 1

Data Protection Task Force - Ref: RIPE53 DB-WG Draft Agenda V3. item C
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Dear Community, the logistical infrastructure for the Data Protection Task Force has been set up by the NCC. It is available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/tf/index.html We are trying to get together a reasonably diverse mix of people for this task force, representing the various roles, activities and types of interest. The TF will be presented and discussed on Fr. morning in the DB-WG session where we will try to collect the initial population. If you can't make it to the DB-WG meeting, please indicate your interest by personal mail to Jochem de Ruig and myself. Please read up on the TF's mandate, the goals and logistics, and consider stepping forward to *actively* contribute! Thank you. See you Friday morning, Wilfried.

2 1