- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-04 Draft Document will be produced (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Denis Walker 27 Sep '06

27 Sep '06

Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Denis Walker wrote: > > [...] > >> ... If you feel this >> should have a higher priority then you may raise the issue on the Database >> Working Group or Antispam Working Group or Address Policy Working Group >> mailing lists." >> > > My feeling is that the only appropriate one is the AP-WG - if at all. > we can easily change this if the AP-WG is considered to be the best place to raise such issues. > Anti-Spam seems to be a niche market, looking at the number of different > abusive behaviour patterns, and DB-WG usually looks at issues regarding > the tools and the registration machinery. > > In particular, DB-WG is very reluctant to get drawn into (human) resource > allocation (i.e. money :-) ) discussions... > > Wilfried. > > PS: I know I am not making new friends with the following text, but still: > Spam is not a network or addressing problem - it is an application and > socio-economic problem. Now shoot - you know where to find me :-) > I think we are confusing two seperate issues here. Spam itself is a socio-economic-political problem. How to stop spam is outside the scope of network operations and addressing policy issues. But the issue here is if I can identify an individual spammer who is causing me problems who should I contact to try to have this person/organisation disconnected? This ties into the whole discussion on the irt object and abuse-mailbox: attributes. Even if we get this part exactly right, if the final email address we present to someone is invalid then the whole system breaks down. This brings us back to the question of how to enforce a policy that says everyone should keep their contact details up to date. I know it is a difficult question, but until it is addressed the whole policy on abuse handling fails. regards Denis Walker Software Engineering Department RIPE NCC

1 0

org-type: NON-REGISTRY (was: New Documents available: RIPE-384, RIPE-385)
by Niall O'Reilly 18 Sep '06

18 Sep '06

[ WG Co-Chair hat on ] On 4 Sep 2006, at 13:26, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > I have some sentimental issues with the new ENUM request forms as I > found out when I had to use them last week. I'm pretty sure that, in English, "sentimental" is the wrong word and is likely to lead to confusion. I think I know what you mean. > The new ENUM registrations ask to register an Organisation holding the > registration. > > This "Organisation" template, has a "org-type:" field. > RIPE tells me to fill in "NON-REGISTRY" in this field. > > I'm aware that we are not an RIR, LIR or NIR as in the RIR world, > but I > do feel the term "NON-REGISTRY" a bit degrading as we are the registry > for .nl and soon hopefully for ENUM. > > Can we invent a new term to use for official ENUM tier-1 registries > here > ? The "optics" do indeed seem non-intuitive. 8-) If some ENUM tier-1 registry would take the initiative to put a proposal on the table, and a few sister organizations gave support, we could have consensus in the ENUM-WG in time to feed into the DB-WG agenda item: Y. Input from other WGs I think we have "all the ducks lined up", as the saying goes; we just need a proposal. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group

1 0

RIPE53 DB-WG Draft Agenda V3
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 18 Sep '06

18 Sep '06

Dear DB-WG folks, Chairpersons, Meeting-Role! This is the 3rd draft of an agenda for the DB-WG at RIPE52 in Amsterdam - 1st week of October 2006. Changes since V12: item Y, iinput from ENUM-WG (t.b.c.) For time slot allocations please refer to the most up-to-date meeting plan at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/meeting-plan.html Please note that, for our convenience, the time slot map becomes clickable for those sessions which have already submitted a (draft) agenda. Best regards, Wilfried. ________________________________________________________________________ A. Administrative Matters - scribe (Nigel T.) - list of participants - agenda - approval of minutes - review of action list - "remote participation" coordination (if needed) B. Data Base Update (N.N., RIPE NCC) [~30 min] . major developments like the IRT changes,... . DB support for glue records and ENUM delegations . ASN32, etc. C. Task-Force on Data Protection Issues (Jochen d. R. RIPE NCC) [~15 min] D. Proposal to retire CRYPT-PW (Peter K., denic.de + WW144) [~15 min] E. Review irt: e-mail/abuse-mailbox (Philippe B., CyberAbuse) [~15 min] F. Update on the Poetry Object (Nigel T.) [~10 min] . Processes for updating Poetic forms Y. Input from other WGs . ENUM-WG: on (new?) organisation type for Database Object [t.b.c.] Z. AOB

1 0

Call for agenda items, DB-WG Meeting during RIPE53, Amsterdam
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

Dear DB-WG folks, the RIPE NCC has asked us to submit the draft agendas for the WGs within the next few days. Thus, please submit (to the WG list or to me personally) your item requests or suggest topics for discussion to be included in the draft agenda. The DataBase-WG meeting is scheduled for Friday morning, October 6, 2006. The overall RIPE meeting outline is available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/meeting-plan.html The list of plenary presentations scheduled may become available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/ (empty right now) See you in Amsterdam, Wilfried.

4 4

RIPE53 DB-WG Draft Agenda V2
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

Dear DB-WG folks, Chairpersons, Meeting-Role! This is the 2nd draft of an agenda for the DB-WG at RIPE52 in Amsterdam - 1st week of October 2006. Changes since V1: item E, irt stuff, E in V1 becoming F For time slot allocations please refer to the most up-to-date meeting plan at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/meeting-plan.html Please note that, for our convenience, the time slot map becomes clickable for those sessions which have already submitted a (draft) agenda. Best regards, Wilfried. ________________________________________________________________________ A. Administrative Matters - scribe (Nigel T.) - list of participants - agenda - approval of minutes - review of action list - "remote participation" coordination (if needed) B. Data Base Update (N.N., RIPE NCC) [~30 min] . major developments like the IRT changes,... . DB support for glue records and ENUM delegations . ASN32, etc. C. Task-Force on Data Protection Issues (Jochen d. R. RIPE NCC) [~15 min] D. Proposal to retire CRYPT-PW (Peter K., denic.de + WW144) [~15 min] E. Review irt: e-mail/abuse-mailbox (Philippe B., CyberAbuse) [~15 min] F. Update on the Poetry Object (Nigel T.) [~10 min] . Processes for updating Poetic forms Y. Input from other WGs Z. AOB

1 0

Suggestions to improve the IRT object
by Philippe Bourcier 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

Hi, The -c flag which is going to be implemented soon for any standard IP query to the RIPE whois is a good thing. But since most IRT objects returned don't have an abuse-mailbox field, the result is pretty useless (no e-mail will be returned). Developers will keep using -B in their tools so that they can send their abuse reports somewhere... Facts ===== The e-mail field of an IRT object is hidden until you use the -B flag. Most IRT objects have been created without an abuse-mailbox field. For the IRT object, the e-mail field is mandatory, but the abuse-mailbox is optional. The e-mail field of an IRT object is by definition an abuse-mailbox. Proposal ======== One of the easiest way to make the -c flag really useful without -B is to have all IRT objects return an abuse-mailbox. Thus, the abuse-mailbox field should be mandatory and for all IRT objects which don't have one, the e-mail field should be copied to it. (To be logical, the e-mail attribute should be set to optional.) More Thoughts ============= Another issue is to deploy the IRT object (or even the abuse-mailbox...) on a huge number of inetnum's. If we wait for people to modify all their inetnum objects so that they have an abuse-mailbox or irt-mnt attribute, it will take ages. A standard IP query to the RIPE whois now gives one "origin" attribute (or more). Maybe the mnt-irt of that aut-num could be displayed in the default output... A company not owning the AS announcing their prefix, and willing to use its own IRT object (or abuse-mailbox) could use the mnt-irt in their inetnum('s) to specify a "more specific" one. RFD === What do people think about these 2 ideas ? Sincerely, Philippe Bourcier

2 1

RIPE53 DB-WG Draft Agenda V1
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

Dear DB-WG folks, Chairpersons, Meeting-Role! This is the 1st draft of an agenda for the DB-WG at RIPE52 in Amsterdam - 1st week of October 2006. Changes since V.: ---. For time slot allocations please refer to the most up-to-date meeting plan at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/meeting-plan.html Please note that, for our convenience, the time slot map becomes clickable for those sessions which have already submitted a (draft) agenda. Best regards, Wilfried. ________________________________________________________________________ A. Administrative Matters - scribe (Nigel T.) - list of participants - agenda - approval of minutes - review of action list - "remote participation" coordination (if needed) B. Data Base Update (N.N., RIPE NCC) [~30 min] . major developments like the IRT changes,... . DB support for glue records and ENUM delegations . ASN32, etc. C. Task-Force on Data Protection Issues (Jochen d. R. RIPE NCC) [~15 min] D. Proposal to retire CRYPT-PW (Peter K., denic.de + WW144) [~15 min] E. Update on the Poetry Object (Nigel T.) [~10 min] . Processes for updating Poetic forms Y. Input from other WGs Z. AOB

1 0