Hi All

I haven't given this any in depth thought yet so it was only my initial reaction. The way I was thinking is that we already have a request for creating groups of SSO credentials for maintaining objects that could be managed using the portal UI. Perhaps registering an interest in being notified of changes to an operational/resource object could also be done using the portal UI.

If a more general service is wanted there may be other issues to consider, for example:

-who should be allowed to monitor changes to data in this way?

-is there a need to know what objects are being monitored and by who?

-if so only by the object maintainer or public disclosure?

-does anyone need to know anything about those who are monitoring objects?

-what interface could be used for 'anyone' to register an interest in monitoring an object?

-how are they going to be notified of changes?

-the original request could be considered as an operational issue relevant to the purpose of the database as defined by the Terms and Conditions, if we allow monitoring of any (operational/resource) object for any reason by anyone are there any legal implications?

-should there be limits on how many objects anyone can monitor?

-if so how could that be enforced?

-the NRTM service is only available to members subject to signing a contract for it's use and accepting it's Terms and Conditions. By registering an interest in monitoring changes to a 'substantial' number of objects, it is in effect (a limited version of) NRTM without a contract

-should there be a contract for anyone wanting to monitor changes with Terms and Conditions attached?

-...

If the community wants such a general service then all such issues can be looked at, but it is widening the scope.

cheers

denis

co-chair DB-WG

On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 23:02:58 CET, Liam Glover <ldglover20@aol.com> wrote:

Hi Dennis,

If this were made possible, I’m curious as to why it would be easier to do as a member only feature?

I can see a benefit of this to those who work to protect users of the internet (and those that might not use it but could still be impacted) such as law enforcement and security researchers. For example, it may be the case that an investigation/research identifies abuse in relation to registered objects which could be reported as being identified to be the result of policy violations. An investigation would then be impacted by consequent changes as a result of the policy violations being recognised and immediate knowledge of the changes would serve to best direct the course of an investigation.

Thanks,

Liam

On 23 Mar 2019, at 21:34, ripedenis--- via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Hi Aris

This is what I was thinking you were looking for. I just wanted to be clear. Knowing how the database is structured I can think of ways of doing this, but it would be for the RIPE NCC to assess feasibility. I think it may be easier to do it as a service to members than making it a more general feature for anyone.

Does anyone else agree on the need for such a feature? If so perhaps we can create a new Numbered Work Item.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 19:21:01 CET, Aris Lambrianidis <aris.lambrianidis@ams-ix.net> wrote:

Hi Denis,

We, and other IXPs, create filters (prefix-lists) for services such as route servers, by parsing aut-num and as-set objects from IRR databases, such as the RIPE database, using tools such as bgpq3.

Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only way to maintain those filters up to date for all of our route server peers, is to periodically poll IRR databases for changes.
IMO it would seem more efficient if the database itself notified us of any changes, rather than us constantly asking the same question(s).

Does this make sense?

That said, I can also think of other use cases in which interested parties having no direct relationship to certain objects and their maintainers are interested in finding out of any changes,
especially in the field of research, but let me not delve into this and keep things simple for the time being.

Kind regards,
Aris

ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk wrote on 23/03/2019 02:26:

Hi Aris

Can you clarify one point about this. Are you saying you want to be notified if someone changes their data that you have no direct relationship with? So if I maintain a set object and you are not part of my company and have no direct business relationship with me and I have no idea who you are, but if I modify this object you want to be notified?

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 01:02:48 CET, Aris Lambrianidis via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Hi Wilfried,

Thank you for the effort in helping out!

Unfortunately this will not do as:

1. It notifies via an "out-of-band" method (i.e. email). This makes
it difficult (but not impossible) to handle with automation.
Nonetheless, the
more elegant way would be through an API leveraging a push mechanism.

but more importantly:

2. the "notify:" attribute has to actually be configured with an address
of the
interested party for it to work.

However I'm looking for mechanism for interested parties to be notified of
any changes in objects independently to what the maintainer has configured
as a notify address.

Kind regards,
Aris

Wilfried Wöber wrote on 22/03/2019 21:50:
> Hi Aris!
>
> Is this what you are looking for?
>
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/notifications/9-2-notification-messages/9-2-1-notification-attributes
>
> I may be off-track, of course :-)
> Wilfried
>
> On 22/03/2019 20:29, Aris Lambrianidis via db-wg wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Back in the day, RFC1996 introduced the NOTIFY mechanism in DNS, which significantly helped with information propagation delay,
>> as it facilitated the transition from a pull (poll) to a push (interrupt) model.
>>
>> The problem we, as AMS-IX, are facing is quite similar when it comes to polling the RIPE database for changes. This seems
>> inefficient.
>>
>> Although the analogy breaks down quickly, as there are no RIPE database "clients" similar to DNS slave servers
>> parsing NOTIFY messages, we would love to see any RIPE API created or extended, or any other mechanism implemented by which
>> a client "registers interest" for any objects it wants to be notified of changes.
>>
>> As a simple example, if we were to "register interest" (e.g. via a REST POST or PUT method) for the AS-AMS-IX-SET as-set object, we would be
>> programmatically notified whenever the "last-modified" field of the as-set was changed.
>>
>> Based on the above, I have 3 questions:
>> 1. Does something like what is described above already exist?
>> 2. If it doesn't exist, would others be interested on such functionality?
>> 3. If it doesn't exist, while knowing that this is only a high level overview of the concept and many details are missing, is this generally feasible?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Aris Lambrianidis
>> AMS-IX
>>