- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Beta RIPE database software
by Marten Terpstra 27 Sep '93

27 Sep '93

folks, I have made a beta database distribution for you all, with the emphasis on BETA. I just packed all the sources and stuff together, documentation and manual pages have not been updated to include all the changes we made over the last weeks, so this is "as is". A "real" distribution will follow whenever I am back in November, or Daniel may make one before that. You can find it on: ncc.ripe.net:/dbase-beta/dbase-beta.tar.Z NOTE this is NOT on ftp.ripe.net. The directory dbase-beta is NOT readable, but the dist can be fetched anyway. Have fun, -Marten

2 1

Re: Obsoleting "connect"
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 24 Sep '93

24 Sep '93

Folks, sorry for being late to voice my opinion, but I'm again out of office. BTW, I'm glad that Helsinki University provides my with decent access to the Internet! *> I tend to agree with you here but before we change the database config to *> make connect optional I guess we should get the okay from the chair who *> will be coordinating the new definitions for the objects. * *I agree. It is my understanding that this approach was a general consensus, thus I propose to (immediately) proceed in this direction. *> Also, we can take it a step further in that if the connect field is there *> it is LOCAL (something to add to the syntax checker ;-(). * *I was thinking of a multi-step phase-in of the new policy, and that this *would be the natural next step. Or do we just jump into it with both feet *rigt away? Well, sometimes you have to jump, although in this case I would strongly advocate a step-by-step approach. I'd also like to keep the possibility of submitting objects with connect: attributes other than LOCAL, as long as we have not agreed on and implemented a decent replacement functionality. More so if the attribute is optional, I don't see the case for doing more syntax checking for an attribute that is about to go away. I include the relevant section of the DB-WG minutes FYI. I think the wording does reflect the proposed approach reasonably well: ---------- 6. DB usage conventions and recommendations Quite some time was spent to discuss the connect: attribute of the network object. It was agreed that the only well-defined value is LOCAL. This attribute should eventually be obsoleted. Later it was noted that it is currently mandatory and should be made optional after one round of mailing-list discussion. However, there is a need for the functionality, maybe the community: approach is the right way to go (eg. create community NSF). Still there is concern that some of the approaches that are obvious for "old hands in networking" are not necessarily useful for the end-users. Maybe the tools coming out of the PRIDE project can help to solve this problem. NCC to start the discussion with a rough proposal before the next meeting. ---------- Wilfried.

3 2

Guarded Objects are now better protected
by Daniel Karrenberg 24 Sep '93

24 Sep '93

Dear colleagues, A recent accident has caused us to protect the guarded objects in the database a little better before the maintainer attribute is fully implemented. Guarded objects can from now on only be updated thru the manual procedure which involves plausibility checking by NCC staff. The manual procedure uses the old mailbox ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net. Any updates for guarded objects sent to the auto-dbm(a)ripe.net mailbox will be refused with the error message: *ERROR*: guarded objects cannot be updated via automatic procedure If you get such an error, re-send the update to ripe-dbm. Once the maintainer attribute is implemented authorisation will be handled automatically. Daniel PS: We hope to have the update procedure for guarded *attributes* deployed next week.

1 0

Obsoleting "connect"
by Havard Eidnes 23 Sep '93

23 Sep '93

Hi, if my memory serves me well, I think the RIPE DB working group concluded to restrict the legal values for the "connect" field to only "LOCAL", and if wider connectivity for a net has been established to not use this attribute in the objects in the database. However, this is somewhat at odds with the current definition of the connect field in the inetnum template, where the attribute is mandatory. So what do you put in an object which has wider connectivity than internal to the "home" autonomous system? My proposal to progress this decision (as mentioned at the end of the RIPE meeting) is thus to initially demote the "connect" attribute from mandatory to optional, and later add stricter checks in the RIPE database software for the values of the connect attribute. Currently updates missing the connect field are being bounced (I know, I tried it while I was at the RIPE meeting :-) - Havard

1 0

Minutes RIPE #16, DB Working Group
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 22 Sep '93

22 Sep '93

Dear all, I just recently submitted the draft minutes for the DB-WG meeting (jointly produced by Daniel am me) to Anne. Any comments welcome! Wilfried. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report from the Database-WG Meeting at the 16th RIPE Meeting, Amsterdam ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0. Additions to/modifications of the agenda The proposed agenda was accepted. 1. The new Database Software Marten Terpstra provided a detailed report on the current state of the DB-Software, both from a software point of view as well as from the deployment point of view. The slides for this presentation can be found in the presentations directory in the RIPE document store: ftp.ripe.net:ripe/presentations The new software is in production use since Friday September 10th and until now there have not been any major problems. During the discussion it was again stressed, that the current implementation is built to do syntax checks according to the object description and not according to common usage practice. The RIPE NCC welcomes suggestions as to where the syntax checking needs to be changed. Currently objects with illegal schema are deleted from the database. One of the things discussed was how to avoid a possibly large number of bounced submissions. One way of doing this is to obtain (part of) the new software to do the checking locally. The beta-version of the software is available, although it probably makes more sense to wait for the official software distribution which will provide a dedicated syntax-checker. A syntax checker daemon at the NCC was also suggested to remove the requirement to run the software locally. A template generator was suggested as well. This needs more discussion on the mailing list. The NCC has run a syntax check on the whole database and was asked to make the syntax error output available. Daniel Karrenberg gave an overview on the "Authorization and Notification of Changes in the RIPE-DB" proposal. It was decided to implement it as proposed. Proposals on how to better support the distribution of the update process are very welcome. The discussion of implementing "guarded attributes" revealed concern about the possibility to delete an object that has a guarded attribute. It was agreed that the implementation will not delete any object as long as guarded fields are present. This will force removal of guarded fields from the object before the delete operation is accepted. The database is NOT keeping track of "pending deletes", thus the delete request has to be submitted again after removal of the guarded attribute(s). The NCC will look into ways to notify guardians of failed deletes. The originator of the delete request will of course be notified. The procedure to convert existing information into guarded information (eg. aut-sys: for the network object) was agreed as follows: - the NCC moves the information from the database to the guardian files - initially the NCC is the guardian - as soon as possible, responsibility for the files is transferred to the real guardian(s) 2. Database (and Software) Documentation The documentation will be structured to consist of - Object Definitions and general background information, by WW and NCC and available before the end of 1993 - Software Documentation, provided by the NCC asap - Maintainer's Guide (for eg. the Local-IRs) additional input and support is expected from the Local-IRs and others - Secondary Server Guide additional input and support is expected from the Local-IRs and others The Objects Definition and the SW-Documentation get priority, in the listed order. 3. Unique Person Handles Given the growth of the database, it is urgent to distinguish person objects for people with the same name! After another round of thorough discussion it was decided that RIPE suggests a global scheme to the InterNIC. One of the possible solutions is to reserve a sub-range of the NIC handle space for RIPE allocation, eg. XY3000-XY5000. If this approach fails, then WW and the NCC will propose a unique identifier scheme for RIPE (aka "RIPE Handle"). 4. Objects Review and Proposals The proposed CLNS routing object (dom-prefix:) was presented by Henk Steenman and accepted. Some minor loose ends how to check for syntax and maybe semantics of the hexadecimal strings that are the CLNS address-prefixes have to be ironed out (Henk Steenman and Tony Bates). The long-standing proposal to build a "Resource Object" was formally withdrawn. Then the discussion moved on to agree on how to make a smooth transition from ripe-60 to the ripe-81 format to describe the routing. The steps are as follows: - as soon as the guarded fields are implemented, ripe-60 entries will no longer be accepted. - ripe-60 information is converted to ripe-81 format. - when there are no longer any operational dependencies then all ripe-60 data will be removed from the database. Jean-Michel Jouanigot is the focal point for the ripe-60 --> ripe-81 transition coordination. Also the gateway: field for the network objects was confirmed to be obsolete and can be removed from the databse. 5. DB Exchange format(s) and procedures The circulated document about the agreed interchange format was briefly reviewed. Everything seems to be in place to actually start exchanges with the InterNIC. There was consensus that this has a very high priority. Currently the recommendation is not to try to get the various databases in sync manually. 6. DB usage conventions and recommendations Quite some time was spent to discuss the connect: attribute of the network object. It was agreed that the only well-defined value is LOCAL. This attribute should eventually be obsoleted. Later it was noted that it is currently mandatory and should be made optional after one round of mailing-list discussion. However, there is a need for the functionality, maybe the community: approach is the right way to go (eg. create community NSF). Still there is concern that some of the approaches that are obvious for "old hands in networking" are not necessarily useful for the end-users. Maybe the tools coming out of the PRIDE project can help to solve this problem. NCC to start the discussion with a rough proposal before the next meeting. 7. whois++ by Peter Deutsch et.al. The whois++ project was briefly mentioned, although the DB group had too little information to actually discuss the issue. AOB It was mentioned that there is a need for new tools to support the Local-IRs. This needs more discussion on the e-mail list. Action-List: ------------ Action 16.?: NCC Put together a consolidated distribution of the new DB software, including a separate syntax checker for objects Action 16.?: Wilfried Woeber Start discussion on the DB mailing list on new tools needed, eg. template generator, syntax checker daemon at the NCC... Action 16.?: NCC Make the error reports form the DB syntax check publicly available Action 16.?: NCC Implement changes to DB procedures according to the proposal "Authorization and Notification of Changes in the RIPE-DB" by Daniel Karrenberg Action 16.?: NCC Implement changes to DB procedures for the guarded attributes according to the agreement Action 16.?: Wilfried Woeber and NCC Produce documentation about "Background, History and Object Definitions" for the new database software before the end of 1993 Action 16.?: NCC Produce "Software Documentation" for the new databse software asap Action 16.?: NCC To approach the InterNIC to agree on the use of a sub-range of the global NIC-Handle space for RIPE usage Action 16.?: Henk Steenman and NCC (Tony Bates) Implement the dom-prefix: object for CLNS routing, after tightening the syntax definition and semantics of the CLNS-address hexadecimal string Action 16.?: Jean-Michel Jouanigot To coordinate the transition from ripe-60 to ripe-81 format for routing description Action 16.?: NCC Try to actually get the synchronisation of the various databases going, using the recently agreed DB Exchange Format Action 16.?: NCC Start discussion on the mailing list by providing a first proposal how the functionality of the badly defined connect: attribute could be replaced (with the target group of the end-user in mind!) by using eg. community: and other forthcoming tools from the PRIDE project ----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Slides of the RR status
by Tony Bates 20 Sep '93

20 Sep '93

please note - as asked the slides I presented at the Routing working group session of the status of the RIPE RR are available from ftp.ripe.net:ripe/presentations/ripe-m16-tony-RRSTATS.ps.Z plus various other slides of possible relevence (i.e plenary talks and Marten's database presentation). All presentations are in the ripe/presentations directory. --Tony. The following are already availabel from the 16th RIPE meeting. ripe-m16-dfk-NCC-REPORT.ps.Z ripe-m16-marten-DBDETAILS.ps.Z ripe-m16-marten-DBPLEN.ps.Z ripe-m16-tony-GISSREP.ps.Z ripe-m16-tony-PRIDE.ps.Z ripe-m16-tony-RRSTATS.ps.Z ripe-m16-tony-RSREP.ps.Z

1 0

Re: FYI: InterNIC/MERIT/RIPE database exchange format
by Berthold Paffrath 16 Sep '93

16 Sep '93

Hi Marten, I have just read the syntax carefully :-) Some observations, just to be compared with your own: <version> ::= WDB_version: <version_no> should perhaps be "WDB-version" for consistency with "inaddr-server" / "admin-c" / ... (but the tag labels are weird anyway) same argument for "as-sblk" and "as-eblk" <host> ::= 1[<host_data>] 1*[<contact>] 1[<update_information>] might be 1*[<contact>|<host_contact>] otherwise remove definition of <host_contact> / <coordinator> / <altpoc> <ntype_data> ::= Research | Defense | Government | Commercial add Educational <parentdom_type> ::= COM | EDU | ROOT | NET | ORG | GOV | US either any domain or any top level domain? <host_data> ::= 1[<hostname>] 1*[<ip_addr>] 0[<nic_handle>] 0*[<nickname>] 0[<cputype>] 0[<opsys>] 0[<protocols>] 0[<hostmail>] either 0*[<protocols>] or how else do you specify multiple protocols? <phone> ::= phne: <datum> phone numbers in North American or International notation? <update_information> ::= 1[<name_date>] 1[<location>] 1[<maintainer>] 0*[<update_notify>] 0[<op_type>] must be 0[<db_operation>] <security-contact> ::= secur-c: <email-address> | <nic-handle> is never used (was omitted from <contact>?) Berthold Paffrath

1 0

changed attitude to the proposed resource object
by Milan Sterba 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

Dear colleagues, After having confronted my old proposal for registering a new RIPE DB object describing network resources with the ongoing activities on network information discovery and uniform resource [locator,name, identifier ...] I have changed my views on the resources as objects registered in RIPE DB. My proposal was more aimed at registering servers (ftp, gopher, WWW, wais ...) rather than information about individual resources (single document, file, package, database access etc.) which is in fact what the users really need. Also the NCC registration procedures are not scaled for this type of task. Ther clear tendency now is towards automatic or semi-automatic resource registration procedures (archie and veronica can serve as examples). The resource indexing and registration seem to become a new type of network service which belongs more to network service providers rather than to the NCC. The role of the NCC rather be to help to coordinate this new type of services and maybe registrate and disseminate pointer information about network resource registration services in Eurooe. For the above reason I would like to withdraw my proposal for a resource object in RIPE DB. RIPE should probably keep an eye on recent evolutions in this field but probably shouldn't get directly involved with the resource registration process itself. Regards Milan Sterba P.S. Here are some references to documents which lead me to this decision : Weider, Chris : Resource transponders, March 1993 (internet draft - draft-ietf-iiir-transponders-00.txt) Berners-Lee, Tim : Uniform Resource Locators, July 1993 (internet draft - draft-ietf-uri-url-01.{txt,ps}) Weider, Chris, Deutsch, Peter : A Vision of an Integrated Internet Information Service (internet-draft - draft-ietf-iiir-vision-00.txt) -- BEWARE - MY TELEPHONE NUMBER HAS CHANGED !!!! ====================================================================== Prague University of Economics e-mail : Milan.Sterba(a)vse.cz Computing Center tel : +42 2 24 21 79 00 nam. W. Churchilla 4 home: +42 2 823 78 59 130 67 Praha 3 fax : +42 2 236 46 24 Czech republic =======================================================================

1 0

assign versus dbm in the new software
by Marten Terpstra 09 Sep '93

09 Sep '93

People, I have put the difference between assign and dbm in the new automatic aliases as well. We now have: auto-dbm - similar to ripe-dbm, but automatic auto-assign - similar to assign, ie network objects that are already present wil be bounced, persons can be updated though. This to allow for tech-c and admin-c that need to be updated with these network numbers to simply go through. deletes are accepted either way, but preferably though auto-dbm. The software also supports the LONGACK string in the subject line of the mail which indicates that you wish verbose output, ie at least a one line status per object. Objects with warnings or errors will always be returned. It seems we are almost ready for the cutover tomorrow. Be prepared for fast and different looking acknowledgements ;-) -Marten PS It may happen that tomorrow some of the additional features of a database update (such as the split version for anonymous ftp, the WAIS index, and the cisco access-lists) might be a bit later. We have to track all the stuff we currently have installed that has to do with the database, and transform them. Almost the full staff will be in on the weekend (RIPE preparation) to look after things in case it breaks (no of course it doesn;t)

1 0

Re: misleading use of the connect: field in inetnum: object
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 08 Sep '93

08 Sep '93

Hi Daniel, >the real problem with the "connect" attribute is that it still is the >badly defined kludge it has been from the start. I can say so because I >invented it. Today we have a well defined and agreed way of specifying >the information you want: It is called ripe-81 by the document fans and >"The Routing Registry" by afficionados. I had one and only one basic concern: when we put info into the DB, this info should HELP and not CONFUSE. I agree with you that "connect:" is maybe far from optimal. >In my opinion we should put our efforts in getting the RR populated >rather than trying to specify how to use an un-specifyable kludge. So now I've got another concern: populating the RR helps the "afficionados", but probably doesn't help the (end-)user in finding out what he/she can expect. I'd assume people are still thinking in terms of NORDUnet, NSF, RIPE and not in terms of ASxxx and ASyyy. And the basic issue remains - you can just as well put some string into the "as-*:" fields and still have only EARN-E-Mail connectivity... >The original plan was to keep connect alive with the only legal value of >LOCAL. Maybe we shouldn't even do this. An item for discussion at the RIPE >meeting! Definitely! And thanks for spending some minutes on it. Cheers, Wilfried.

5 4