Cc: Database WG ,
ncc-services-wg
From: Joao Damas
Subject: Re: [db-wg] Proposal - Maintaining person, role and domain objects
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:00:20 +0200
To: Denis Walker

Stage 1 makes a lot of sense to me as it has little consequences to
older data while it makes sure new information going into the DB has
a better chance of being kept as originally posted by the object
creator.
The other stages do need a bit more discussion as they may in fact
affect a lot of legacy data and have the potential to add a burden to
LIR operations. I am in favour of those extra steps, just think that
there is a need to repeat the warnings and announcements before and
insist on people making an impact analysis on their operations.

 

 

Joao Damas

On 21 Jun 2007, at 14:41, Denis Walker wrote:

> [Apologies for duplicate mails]
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> As a result of discussions during the Database Working Group
> session at
> RIPE 54, the RIPE NCC has nine proposals and implementation plans to
> present to the community. Although most of them are now in the final
> stages of preparation, we will send them out one at a time over the
> next
> few weeks for consideration by the community.
>
> The first one concerns maintaining all objects in the RIPE
> Database, which
> followed from a recommendation from the Data Protection Task Force
> (DP TF)
> (see below). We have already had some preliminary discussions about
> this
> with the DP TF. They provided the RIPE NCC with some very useful
> feedback,
> which is incorporated in this proposal.
>
> Regards
> Denis Walker
> RIPE NCC
>
>
>
> Maintaining person, role and domain objects
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
> Implementation
> As with the CRYPT-PW deprecation this will have a staged rollout.
>
> Stage 1
>
> * No new person, role or domain objects can be created without a
> "mnt-by:" attribute.
> * Any un-maintained person, role or domain object cannot be modified
> without adding a "mnt-by:" attribute.
> * Any update where objects reference an un-maintained person object,
> either directly or through a mntner with such references, will
> generate a warning message in the acknowledgement.
>
> In this stage the acknowledgement message may include these warnings:
>
> ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE]
> ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] in
> mntner [AARDVARK-MNT]
>
> Stage 2
>
> * Any update where objects reference an un-maintained person object,
> either directly or through a mntner with such references, will
> generate a warning message in the acknowledgement.
> * Any NEW reference to an un-maintained person object or to a mntner
> which has such references will generate an error message in the
> acknowledgement and the update will fail.
>
> In this stage the acknowledgement message may include these warnings
> and errors:
>
> ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE]
> ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] in
> mntner [AARDVARK-MNT]
> ***ERROR: New reference to un-maintained person object [DW-RIPE]
> ***ERROR: New reference to un-maintained person object [DW-RIPE] in
> mntner [AARDVARK-MNT]
>
> Stage 3
>
> * Any update where objects reference an un-maintained person object,
> either directly or through a mntner with such references, will
> generate an error message in the acknowledgement and the update
> will fail.
>
> In this stage the acknowledgement message may include these errors:
>
> ***ERROR: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE]
> ***ERROR: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] in mntner
> [AARDVARK-MNT]
>
>
> Statistics
> ----------
> While not a very statistically valid survey, we looked at a few days
> just after the RIPE meeting to see how many new person objects were
> created with and without mntner objects. We also queried the new
> objects some time after creation to allow for a "mnt-by:" to be added
> later. We also noted how many unique person objects were referenced in
> any objects in update messages with and without mntner objects. AUTO-
> references were ignored in both creations and updates, and multiple
> instances of the same person object being referenced many times were
> counted as one.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> | Date |Created |Created |Referenced |Referenced |
> | |with |without |with |without |
> |--------------------------------------------------------|
> | 20070515 | 156 | 89 | 925 | 726 |
> | 20070516 | 111 | 67 | 1022 | 486 |
> | 20070517 | 85 | 48 | 476 | 185 |
> | 20070518 | 82 | 18 | 679 | 445 |
> --------------------------------------------------------
>




End of db-wg Digest