June 2025 - db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Proposal: Privacy in RIPE database objects
by Rodolfo García Peñas (kix) 26 Jun '25

26 Jun '25

Hi, I would like to make a proposal regarding the database so that privacy can be included in the objects. Among the main objectives of the database [1] are "To provide accurate registration information of these resources in order to meet a variety of operational requirements" and "Facilitating coordination between network operators (network problem resolution, outage notification etc.)", and therefore the database contains information to facilitate these actions. However, this information can be used to obtain information about individuals and entities in order to carry out unwanted actions (network recognition, phishing, etc.). To prevent network information and contact information from being obtained, objects with anonymized information are stored in the database, role objects are used instead of person objects, non-real information is used, or inetnum objects are not created. Some mailing threads related to these issues have been seen on the mailing list [2][3]. My proposal is that the database offers privacy regarding the information it contains, allowing real information to be stored while protecting LIRs and end users by providing filtered information. To this end, I propose using a system similar to "domain privacy" in DNS registries to hide desired information: - Use the option to hide sensitive information in mandatory fields. - Provide an option to maintain contact with the person responsible for the object. Example: person: Privacy protected address: Privacy protected address: Privacy protected e-mail: Privacy protected (contact link) phone: Privacy protected (contact link) remarks: For mail filtering or abuse problems contact with the abuse mailbox nic-hdl: ABCD1-RIPE mnt-by: Privacy protected (contact link) created: 2008-11-13T15:53:02Z last-modified: 2024-09-23T13:25:48Z source: RIPE One proposal is to use a Boolean model for each field (or for all fields in the object) to indicate whether the information should be "protected" or "public." Another example option would be to include levels such as "public" (publicly accessible), "LEA" (accessible by LEAs), "LIR" (accessible by other authenticated LIRs), and "private" (fully private). This information could be included by default at the user or LIR level using the LIR portal. For email or telephone communication, the platform could act as a mail intermediary or by providing anonymized email addresses, facilitating coordination between network operators/users. IMO, first, we must reach a consensus on whether this option is useful for database management, and then we can discuss implementation details. Regards, Rodolfo García (kix) PS. Thanks Jordi, Miguel for your help. [1] https://docs.db.ripe.net/What-is-the-RIPE-Database/Purpose-and-Content-of-t… [2] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-September/01… [3] https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/thread/MEOS4MD7ZYLVOA… The content of this email reflects personal opinions and does not represent the views of any organization.

4 7

RIPE90 Database Working Group Minutes
by David Tatlisu 24 Jun '25

24 Jun '25

Hi Everyone, The draft minutes from our session at RIPE90 have been published on the RIPE website, available at https://www.ripe.net/community/wg/active-wg/db/minutes/ripe-database-workin… We'd like to thank Hans from the RIPE NCC for preparing the draft. Please review the minutes, and send any necessary corrections to the working group mailing list. David Tatlisu, On behalf of the DB WG Co-Chairs

1 0

Archiving the "Action List"
by Peter Hessler 21 Jun '25

21 Jun '25

As seen on the website, the Database Working Group has an Action List, instead of an Action Movie. https://www.ripe.net/community/wg/active-wg/db/action-list/ From a basic perusal of them, this seems to be a basic tracking system of TODOs and Proposals. Notice it says "last updated 7 May 2009". I propose we simply archive this list. If anything is still relevant, please bring it up as if it were new. Peter Hessler, On behalf of the DB WG Co-Chairs

4 4

Removing all MD5 Hashed Passwords Not Used for Authentication in the past year (updated)
by Edward Shryane 10 Jun '25

10 Jun '25

Dear colleagues, According to January's updated migration plan to remove all MD5 hashed passwords from the RIPE database in 2025 : https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/thread/NGCRQWJPF7MT24… And to update my previous mail from 31st March: https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/thread/4QNPE24MIDFRSG… In Q2 2025, the RIPE NCC plans to remove all MD5 hashed passwords that have not been used for authentication since 1st January 2024, to reduce the risk of having so many MD5 hashes in the database in case of a data breach. We found this will affect approximately 17,000 out of 62,000 maintainers. We have now split these maintainers into four batches and will notify the first batch by email *tomorrow* 11th June. We will send a reminder email for this first batch in one week (18th June), and then finally remove any inactive password hashes for the first batch in two weeks (25th June). We will wait one week before starting on the next batch of maintainers, and also give each batch two weeks notice. This should be enough time to suffiently notify affected maintainers, and to complete the process by mid-July, so we can begin to notify maintainers who are *actively* using password hashes (giving them 6 months notice before support for passwords is removed by end 2025). If maintainers need more time, or if we have many support requests, then we can adjust the timeline accordingly. Please let us know your comments and/or questions regarding this planned change. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 0

status levels
by denis walker 03 Jun '25

03 Jun '25

Colleagues Maybe I asked too many questions in one email, so I'll take it bit by bit. Is it reasonable to limit the number of levels of SUB-ALLOCATED PA to 4? That is the most we have now in the RIPE Database. Or do you have another number in mind...maybe even 1? Should there be a limit on the number of levels in a LEGACY hierarchy? Currently it is infinite. cheers denids

5 17

NWI proposal: adjusting contact method requirements and adding new methods
by Leo Vegoda 03 Jun '25

03 Jun '25

Hi, A while back Cynthia, Dmitry and I looked at the possibility of adding new contact methods. Dmitry presented this at RIPE 88: https://ripe88.ripe.net/archives/video/1347/ I've tried to put this into a more complete NWI and offer it for discussion. The TLDR is: 1) Align the requirement levels for contact methods 2) Let people use new contact methods, like Signal We hope that by offering the methods people want to use, the contact data in the RIPE Database can be as useful as is possible. Kind regards, Leo ## Problem statement The requirement level for contact methods for person and role objects are inconsistent. This is both confusing and inconvenient. This is a proposal to add flexibility to the contact methods offered at the database level. It is not a proposal to change policy requirements for contact methods. This proposal is limited to admin-c and tech-c contact types. Our world offers more contact methods than were available when the currently supported methods were chosen for the RIPE Database. User acceptance of these methods differ by country and generation. Whether this proposal is accepted or not, it is good to review the rationale for these rules and have an updated rationale published. 1. Person and role objects have four contact methods. A postal address is mandatory for both. A phone is mandatory for person objects but not role objects. E-mail is mandatory for role but not person objects. 2. Postal mail is less useful than it was 20 years ago. Some countries are reducing the frequency of postal deliveries. And geographically distributed teams find postal mail less useful. 3. The telephone is becoming less useful, too. Call volumes are dropping and popular psychology publications explain why calls are less likely to be answered: - https://www.statista.com/statistics/551035/finland-call-volume-by-type-of-c… - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg8jllq283o - https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/un-numb/202405/why-gen-zers-keep-… ## Proposal We should provide contacts with more flexibility. We should also add new options that were not available when the RIPE Database's contact methods were last reviewed. The three elements below follow on from NWI-15, which is based on the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force recommendations for what should be published about resource holders. The registry needs to retain the full set of required data. The DBTF report did not mention contacts methods for the resources. 1. Align the contact method requirements between role and person objects used in admin-c and tech-c attributes. Make all contact methods optional for the public RIPE Database as long as one is chosen. There is no point publishing a contact method that will not be used. That would just waste the time of people trying to make contact. 2. Add support for new contact methods in the RIPE Database, including SIP (RFC 3969), Signal, Telegram, and WhatsApp. 3. Add support for RFC 8605 (ICANN Extensions for the Registration Data Access Protocol) and show the HTTPS intermediary and/or private URI where one is available. Making these changes will require updates to the RPSL and RDAP publication methods. The RIPE NCC should manage the specifics of the design and implementation. ## Recommendation for Impact Assessment The impact assessment provided by the RIPE NCC should note any contact method requirements specified in policy. It should also note where the policy does not specify a contact method requirement. The RIPE NCC might want to note the impact of enforcing policy requirements when more user choice is offered at the database layer.

6 9