Comments on RIPE Database requirements progress
Colleagues For the benefit of those who don't often check the mail archives of the RIPE Database Task Force there have been 4 meetings in February and March with 3 sets of minutes published so far on their mail archive which can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-db-requirements-tf/ The chairs really appreciate the work done by the TF and acknowledge that it is a long and complex task. I have read through these last sets of minutes and feel some things need to be clarified. It may just be language but the minutes suggest the TF has or will make decisions on a number of items, rather than decisions on their recommendations for these items. As it says in their charter "The task force is a small and focused drafting team of up to six persons and not a representative body....Consensus building will take place in the appropriate RIPE working groups". Up to now there has been very little discussion in any working group and certainly no consensus on any of the issues raised as yet. I see the TF making a number of very important recommendations which can then be discussed publicly in appropriate WGs to see if there is a consensus. Let me try to clarify or question some specific issues from recent minutes. I am doing this here, rather than privately with the TF as I have done in the past, as I feel more public discussion is needed on this document the TF is producing. "The task force also discussed what will happen after their final report is published. They agreed that the implementation of the requirements could be delegated to the relevant working groups but mentioned that it will be up to the RIPE Chair team to decide what to do next with it." This implies that the requirements, as suggested by the TF, 'will be' implemented and that the implementation details 'could be' delegated to WGs. The requirements and recommendations themselves, from the TF, need to be discussed in WGs to see if the community even agrees with them. That needs to happen before any discussion on possible implementation. "Ed asked if the task force was considering to make a recommendation regarding assignments as it seems to drive the creation of a lot of unmaintained objects (especially PERSON objects). The task force replied that they were working on a recommendation dealing with assignments but didn’t reach a final decision yet." Firstly it should not be possible to create any unmaintained objects in the database now. If creating assignments is causing too much personal data to be entered into the database it may be the issue of personal data that needs to be addressed. The issue of assignments (whether or not they are needed) should not be confused with that of personal data. These two issues should be considered completely separately. "They [TF] also decided to only publish a final draft ahead of RIPE 82 and skip the publication of an intermediate draft." This is unfortunate as it again reduces community discussion and the chances for the community to offer any feedback to the TF to be incorporated into the final draft. "The task force discussed Randy and Denis’s recent comments on the db-wg mailing list about NWI-2 [historical data]. Ed mentioned that this was one final call from Denis to see if there are any interest from the community to move NWI-2 forward. As the task force is already working on this topic, Ed proposed to inform the db-wg that they can close NWI-2. The task force agreed." The NWIs are action points on the DB-WG. It is for the co-chairs to decide on these action points based on discussion and consensus by the WG members. The issue of historical data queries has been on and off the agenda of the WG for a number of years. I am sure the members of the DB-WG will have more to say yet on this issue. There have been many individual comments. The key to resolving this issue is to get all interested parties to discuss it, openly, at the same time. "The task force decided to keep the current baseline [registration] information data" I presume you mean 'the TF recommends keeping...'. There has been no discussion in any WG on changing this registration data so no consensus either way as yet. "The task force didn’t get enough information and arguments from the questionnaire survey results to decide whether or not the legal address of resource holders should be published in the RIPE Database. The task force will therefore ask the community via email to get more feedback on this topic before making a decision." Again this is an important issue which cannot be decided behind closed doors, based on private comments to a non representative body. There are some major issues in this list of points. In an open, transparent, bottom up, community driven industry these issues can only be decided by open discussion and consensus within WGs. We all welcome the recommendations put forward by the TF but they are by no means final decisions on these issues. They will be the starting points for open, public discussion leading to community consensus. In the meantime, please feel free to comment on and discuss publicly on this WG mailing list any issues regarding the TF draft requirements document which can be found here https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/the-ripe-databa... cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
While the RIPE Database Working Group and the RIPE NCC are able to solve a lot of the operational issues, a high-level approach was needed to establish a general consensus about the functionality of the RIPE Database. The RIPE Database Requirements Task Force (DBTF) was formed to tackle this challenge and provides here a list of high-level requirements and recommendations that attempt to resolve ongoing and
Hi, I will be honest I wasn't even aware of the TF's existence until quite recently and just looking at the PDF that denis linked, I have some questions... possible future issues regarding the functionality of the RIPE Database and the data it contains. I feel like this is contradictory, if you want a general consensus, then doing everything in a small closed group is (in my opinion) the completely wrong thing to do. Some topics really need a closed task force for a specific thing, but at least to me, I don't see the need for what seems like a closed version of the db-wg? Maybe I am missing something but the db-wg often seems to have barely anything to do and seems to work quite well for the most part (other than the privacy related questions). And I feel like this TF seems unneeded except for the privacy parts, maybe I am missing something but I don't see why it is needed for all these things? While this TF has apparently existed since 2019 and the situation with regards to some of this has changed since then, the still draft document mentions things that are no longer relevant/reinforcing existing things. I can't be bothered checking the timelines and comparing, but the entire recommendations section with regards to the IRR seems irrelevant at this point as I think all of this is implemented/not having found a good way to implement. So presenting that at RIPE82 is odd as it doesn't mention that it is no longer really relevant. (it is just a draft, so idk how the final version will look) I mean there is one part...
Routing information for resources delegated to holders that have not been authenticated by the RIPE NCC should be labelled as non-authoritative. This should apply to both non-RIPE NCC resources and legacy resources with no formal relationship to the RIPE NCC.
I don't think this has been decided/implemented but I feel that's the kind of thing that 6 people (who I would assume don't work with these kinds of resources) shouldn't decide or even recommend behind closed doors. I am not sure what is meant by authenticated here, but if the NCC has a maintainer that has the inetnum object but no formal relationship, then I personally feel like that maintainer should also be able to create route objects etc. (unless the RIPE NCC has a reason to suspect that the maintainer is not actually the legacy resource holder or whatever) Once again, I don't have the full story here, and I would appreciate people filling me in on this in a more condensed way and telling me if I am wrong here. -Cynthia On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:00 PM denis walker via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Colleagues
For the benefit of those who don't often check the mail archives of the RIPE Database Task Force there have been 4 meetings in February and March with 3 sets of minutes published so far on their mail archive which can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-db-requirements-tf/
The chairs really appreciate the work done by the TF and acknowledge that it is a long and complex task. I have read through these last sets of minutes and feel some things need to be clarified. It may just be language but the minutes suggest the TF has or will make decisions on a number of items, rather than decisions on their recommendations for these items. As it says in their charter "The task force is a small and focused drafting team of up to six persons and not a representative body....Consensus building will take place in the appropriate RIPE working groups". Up to now there has been very little discussion in any working group and certainly no consensus on any of the issues raised as yet. I see the TF making a number of very important recommendations which can then be discussed publicly in appropriate WGs to see if there is a consensus.
Let me try to clarify or question some specific issues from recent minutes. I am doing this here, rather than privately with the TF as I have done in the past, as I feel more public discussion is needed on this document the TF is producing.
"The task force also discussed what will happen after their final report is published. They agreed that the implementation of the requirements could be delegated to the relevant working groups but mentioned that it will be up to the RIPE Chair team to decide what to do next with it."
This implies that the requirements, as suggested by the TF, 'will be' implemented and that the implementation details 'could be' delegated to WGs. The requirements and recommendations themselves, from the TF, need to be discussed in WGs to see if the community even agrees with them. That needs to happen before any discussion on possible implementation.
"Ed asked if the task force was considering to make a recommendation regarding assignments as it seems to drive the creation of a lot of unmaintained objects (especially PERSON objects). The task force replied that they were working on a recommendation dealing with assignments but didn’t reach a final decision yet."
Firstly it should not be possible to create any unmaintained objects in the database now. If creating assignments is causing too much personal data to be entered into the database it may be the issue of personal data that needs to be addressed. The issue of assignments (whether or not they are needed) should not be confused with that of personal data. These two issues should be considered completely separately.
"They [TF] also decided to only publish a final draft ahead of RIPE 82 and skip the publication of an intermediate draft."
This is unfortunate as it again reduces community discussion and the chances for the community to offer any feedback to the TF to be incorporated into the final draft.
"The task force discussed Randy and Denis’s recent comments on the db-wg mailing list about NWI-2 [historical data]. Ed mentioned that this was one final call from Denis to see if there are any interest from the community to move NWI-2 forward. As the task force is already working on this topic, Ed proposed to inform the db-wg that they can close NWI-2. The task force agreed."
The NWIs are action points on the DB-WG. It is for the co-chairs to decide on these action points based on discussion and consensus by the WG members. The issue of historical data queries has been on and off the agenda of the WG for a number of years. I am sure the members of the DB-WG will have more to say yet on this issue. There have been many individual comments. The key to resolving this issue is to get all interested parties to discuss it, openly, at the same time.
"The task force decided to keep the current baseline [registration] information data"
I presume you mean 'the TF recommends keeping...'. There has been no discussion in any WG on changing this registration data so no consensus either way as yet.
"The task force didn’t get enough information and arguments from the questionnaire survey results to decide whether or not the legal address of resource holders should be published in the RIPE Database. The task force will therefore ask the community via email to get more feedback on this topic before making a decision."
Again this is an important issue which cannot be decided behind closed doors, based on private comments to a non representative body. There are some major issues in this list of points. In an open, transparent, bottom up, community driven industry these issues can only be decided by open discussion and consensus within WGs. We all welcome the recommendations put forward by the TF but they are by no means final decisions on these issues. They will be the starting points for open, public discussion leading to community consensus.
In the meantime, please feel free to comment on and discuss publicly on this WG mailing list any issues regarding the TF draft requirements document which can be found here https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/the-ripe-databa...
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
Hi Denis, Thank you for your comments. I can confirm that the task force is only working on recommendations for the RIPE community to consider. Since the task force started, we’ve hosted two BoFs, run two surveys, and published one draft document for comments. We are using this feedback to inform our decisions regarding the requirements document. We are planning a third BoF in early May and will collect more feedback on open issues via this mailing list. We will then work on finalising our document, which should be published before RIPE 82. Best, Bijal on behalf of the DBTF
On 1 Apr 2021, at 15:59, denis walker via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Colleagues
For the benefit of those who don't often check the mail archives of the RIPE Database Task Force there have been 4 meetings in February and March with 3 sets of minutes published so far on their mail archive which can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-db-requirements-tf/
The chairs really appreciate the work done by the TF and acknowledge that it is a long and complex task. I have read through these last sets of minutes and feel some things need to be clarified. It may just be language but the minutes suggest the TF has or will make decisions on a number of items, rather than decisions on their recommendations for these items. As it says in their charter "The task force is a small and focused drafting team of up to six persons and not a representative body....Consensus building will take place in the appropriate RIPE working groups". Up to now there has been very little discussion in any working group and certainly no consensus on any of the issues raised as yet. I see the TF making a number of very important recommendations which can then be discussed publicly in appropriate WGs to see if there is a consensus.
Let me try to clarify or question some specific issues from recent minutes. I am doing this here, rather than privately with the TF as I have done in the past, as I feel more public discussion is needed on this document the TF is producing.
"The task force also discussed what will happen after their final report is published. They agreed that the implementation of the requirements could be delegated to the relevant working groups but mentioned that it will be up to the RIPE Chair team to decide what to do next with it."
This implies that the requirements, as suggested by the TF, 'will be' implemented and that the implementation details 'could be' delegated to WGs. The requirements and recommendations themselves, from the TF, need to be discussed in WGs to see if the community even agrees with them. That needs to happen before any discussion on possible implementation.
"Ed asked if the task force was considering to make a recommendation regarding assignments as it seems to drive the creation of a lot of unmaintained objects (especially PERSON objects). The task force replied that they were working on a recommendation dealing with assignments but didn’t reach a final decision yet."
Firstly it should not be possible to create any unmaintained objects in the database now. If creating assignments is causing too much personal data to be entered into the database it may be the issue of personal data that needs to be addressed. The issue of assignments (whether or not they are needed) should not be confused with that of personal data. These two issues should be considered completely separately.
"They [TF] also decided to only publish a final draft ahead of RIPE 82 and skip the publication of an intermediate draft."
This is unfortunate as it again reduces community discussion and the chances for the community to offer any feedback to the TF to be incorporated into the final draft.
"The task force discussed Randy and Denis’s recent comments on the db-wg mailing list about NWI-2 [historical data]. Ed mentioned that this was one final call from Denis to see if there are any interest from the community to move NWI-2 forward. As the task force is already working on this topic, Ed proposed to inform the db-wg that they can close NWI-2. The task force agreed."
The NWIs are action points on the DB-WG. It is for the co-chairs to decide on these action points based on discussion and consensus by the WG members. The issue of historical data queries has been on and off the agenda of the WG for a number of years. I am sure the members of the DB-WG will have more to say yet on this issue. There have been many individual comments. The key to resolving this issue is to get all interested parties to discuss it, openly, at the same time.
"The task force decided to keep the current baseline [registration] information data"
I presume you mean 'the TF recommends keeping...'. There has been no discussion in any WG on changing this registration data so no consensus either way as yet.
"The task force didn’t get enough information and arguments from the questionnaire survey results to decide whether or not the legal address of resource holders should be published in the RIPE Database. The task force will therefore ask the community via email to get more feedback on this topic before making a decision."
Again this is an important issue which cannot be decided behind closed doors, based on private comments to a non representative body. There are some major issues in this list of points. In an open, transparent, bottom up, community driven industry these issues can only be decided by open discussion and consensus within WGs. We all welcome the recommendations put forward by the TF but they are by no means final decisions on these issues. They will be the starting points for open, public discussion leading to community consensus.
In the meantime, please feel free to comment on and discuss publicly on this WG mailing list any issues regarding the TF draft requirements document which can be found here https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/the-ripe-databa...
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
participants (3)
-
Bijal Sanghani -
Cynthia Revström -
denis walker