All, On Tue, 05 May 2015 09:25:05 +0100 "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2015 21:03:20 +0100, denis walker wrote:
In a neat and perfect world where everyone had all documentation for all contracts, deals, agreements that have ever been made regarding address space, then I agree there is no problem giving out these permissions as everything can be put right if mistakes are made.
However, we don't all live in that perfect world. There have been examples where a block of addresses was given to an organisation many years ago to be divided up and distributed to other organisations. But sometimes that parent block still exists in the RIPE Database and is registered with an organisation. If we give this organisation the reclaim permissions 'by default' they can delete anything they want.
Thanks for explaining, Denis and Andrea.
Without knowing whether the division and distribution was intended as a sub-allocation or rather as a transfer, it's not possible (for the RIPE NCC or for another external observer) to be sure whether control over the parent block as an aggregate reasonably "belongs to" the registered organization.
This is true. However, we know that some people who maintain the parent objects are unable to correct the database. This is a problem both for those maintainers and for anyone hoping for accurate information about the network. We know there is a theoretical problem where someone might have network information deleted from the RIPE database that they want to keep there. We do not now if this is an actual problem. I remind the working group that if someone *does* have their network deleted inappropriately, then the record can be re-created. Updating a RIPE Database entry does not instantly de-peer people or the like. I'm quite happy with a dispute policy that works to always restore a more-specific inetnum object in case of complaint by the former maintainer of the object, and then lets any further resolution occur using other means. Cheers, -- Shane