Request for Feedback: Phasing Out Text-Based Email Request Forms
Dear colleagues, We are currently working to streamline the process around resource requests, which is something that was asked for in the RIPE NCC Survey 2013. As you will be aware, we offer request forms in the LIR Portal in addition to the text-based email forms that are published in the RIPE document store: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/current-ripe-documents/request-forms-supportin... Maintaining two different systems for requests is inefficient, as it requires duplicate work every time there is a policy change. More importantly, the text-based email forms use legacy systems that take engineering time from our staff to maintain. We contacted many LIRs who made requests using the text-based email forms and in most cases they were using them out of habit or due to specific workflows they had. Most said they would not mind to change to the LIR Portal request forms, or adjust their workflows to use an API. Today, most requests come via the LIR Portal rather than by email. Since November 2013: - 95% of IPv6 allocations were issued after an LIR Portal form was sent (909 out of 960) - 91% of IPv4 allocations were requested via the LIR Portal (1,051 out of 1,154) - 75% of ASNs were requested via the LIR Portal (727 out of 975) - From the 25% of ASNs requested via email, 50% of these requests needed several iterations to pass the syntax checks Based on this feedback and the fact that a clear majority of members are requesting resources through the LIR Portal, we would like to propose the following: - The text-based email forms would be archived on 1 November 2014. - We would continue to accept email requests until the end of December 2014 to ensure that regular workflows are not disrupted. - The RIPE NCC would offer an API for those members with specific workflows that prevent them from using the request forms in the LIR Portal. - Text-based request forms that may be used by non-members (e.g. ENUM requests) would remain on the website. - To maintain transparency regarding the information needed to obtain resources, the RIPE NCC would publish these procedures on www.ripe.net. We are interested in your feedback on this proposal: - Do you agree with the general idea of phasing out text-based request forms? - What specific requirements would need to be addressed by the API? - Would December 2014 be a suitable deadline to give you time to adjust your systems and workflows? Please share your feedback on the RIPE NCC Services WG mailing list by emailing <ncc-services-wg@ripe.net> before 1 October 2014. If you would like to send us your technical requirements and/or concerns confidentially, please email us at <requestforms@ripe.net> We will provide an update with a summary of the feedback received, along with any next steps if the proposal is to go ahead. Looking forward to your input, Best regards, Ingrid Wijte Assistant Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
Hi Ingrid, I disagree with this in general. Even those who aren't using automated systems to generate the forms, such as myself, find it useful to develop a form in a text file over time before submitting it. Also, if it is such a chore to maintain dual systems, then I suggest the NCC develops a mail-to-API converter at their end rather than require each individual LIR to change their systems. I also suggest that the API should be made available far ahead of phasing anything out. You should release that first long before discussing whether to retire the e-mail submission. Three months is not nearly enough time. It would only be possible to judge this once the API is place to gauge the development effort required. Some if not most LIRs do not have full-time developers on staff or do not maintain their own systems. Regards, David Croft On 5 August 2014 12:23, Ingrid Wijte <ingrid@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We are currently working to streamline the process around resource requests, which is something that was asked for in the RIPE NCC Survey 2013. As you will be aware, we offer request forms in the LIR Portal in addition to the text-based email forms that are published in the RIPE document store:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/current-ripe-documents/request-forms-supportin...
Maintaining two different systems for requests is inefficient, as it requires duplicate work every time there is a policy change. More importantly, the text-based email forms use legacy systems that take engineering time from our staff to maintain.
We contacted many LIRs who made requests using the text-based email forms and in most cases they were using them out of habit or due to specific workflows they had. Most said they would not mind to change to the LIR Portal request forms, or adjust their workflows to use an API.
Today, most requests come via the LIR Portal rather than by email. Since November 2013:
- 95% of IPv6 allocations were issued after an LIR Portal form was sent (909 out of 960) - 91% of IPv4 allocations were requested via the LIR Portal (1,051 out of 1,154) - 75% of ASNs were requested via the LIR Portal (727 out of 975) - From the 25% of ASNs requested via email, 50% of these requests needed several iterations to pass the syntax checks
Based on this feedback and the fact that a clear majority of members are requesting resources through the LIR Portal, we would like to propose the following:
- The text-based email forms would be archived on 1 November 2014. - We would continue to accept email requests until the end of December 2014 to ensure that regular workflows are not disrupted. - The RIPE NCC would offer an API for those members with specific workflows that prevent them from using the request forms in the LIR Portal. - Text-based request forms that may be used by non-members (e.g. ENUM requests) would remain on the website. - To maintain transparency regarding the information needed to obtain resources, the RIPE NCC would publish these procedures on www.ripe.net.
We are interested in your feedback on this proposal:
- Do you agree with the general idea of phasing out text-based request forms? - What specific requirements would need to be addressed by the API? - Would December 2014 be a suitable deadline to give you time to adjust your systems and workflows?
Please share your feedback on the RIPE NCC Services WG mailing list by emailing <ncc-services-wg@ripe.net> before 1 October 2014. If you would like to send us your technical requirements and/or concerns confidentially, please email us at <requestforms@ripe.net>
We will provide an update with a summary of the feedback received, along with any next steps if the proposal is to go ahead.
Looking forward to your input, Best regards,
Ingrid Wijte Assistant Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
-- David Croft IT - Network Engineering Sargasso Networks http://www.sargasso.net/ For support enquiries please always contact support at sargasso.net and not any named individual. UK: 0845 034 5020 USA: 212-400-1694
Hi, On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 12:23:25PM +0200, Ingrid Wijte wrote:
We contacted many LIRs who made requests using the text-based email forms and in most cases they were using them out of habit or due to specific workflows they had. Most said they would not mind to change to the LIR Portal request forms, or adjust their workflows to use an API.
I'm a heavy mail form user, and I have been bitten by inconsistencies in the robot in the past (requiring bits that are not in the form, or refusing bits that *are* in the form, or lagging behind updated forms, or just refusing to understand me)... The amount of interaction I have with the NCC these days is pretty much "two requests for every new LIR that is set up" (initial-v6, initial-v4), and every now and then, a spurious AS number or IPv6 PI, maybe 5 formal requests in total per year. Given all that I would be fine with going through the LIR portal for these few requests. Even if I still prefer mail to web interfaces :-) Gert Doering -- speaking for two minor LIRs not doing much PI/AS business -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 12:23:25PM +0200, Ingrid Wijte wrote:
We contacted many LIRs who made requests using the text-based email forms and in most cases they were using them out of habit or due to specific workflows they had. Most said they would not mind to change to the LIR Portal request forms, or adjust their workflows to use an API.
As a frequent user of the various services of the NCC we moved to the LIR portal based forms for new allocations a while ago and it works fine. I hope that this isn't a sliding scale and that the auto-dbm@ripe.net will also be put to rest as we still use that a LOT. Yes there is much to say to do everything in the Portal and RIPE DB Webinterface, but for most actions using templated emails is still faster for creating new reverse dns zones or person objects etc. On the topic of providing an API for this in the future, I would suggest a longer period (6 to 9 months) for the change from the email forms to the API based forms. As people might need some time to change their internal systems. Regards, Erik Bais A2B Internet
Hi, On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 04:49:39PM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
I hope that this isn't a sliding scale and that the auto-dbm@ripe.net will also be put to rest as we still use that a LOT.
Uh, strongly seconded. Everything I said about "I'm fine going to the portal" was speaking about the HM robot pre-processing mails to hostmaster@ripe.net. auto-dbm@ripe.net is a different thing, and if *that* one was supposed to go away, I'd oppose the proposal :) Gert Doering -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, In order to clarify, the proposal only addresses Internet number resource request forms sent to hostmaster@ripe.net. The proposal does not impact the use of auto-dbm@ripe.net. Best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC On 13/8/14 11:42, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 04:49:39PM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
I hope that this isn't a sliding scale and that the auto-dbm@ripe.net will also be put to rest as we still use that a LOT. Uh, strongly seconded.
Everything I said about "I'm fine going to the portal" was speaking about the HM robot pre-processing mails to hostmaster@ripe.net.
auto-dbm@ripe.net is a different thing, and if *that* one was supposed to go away, I'd oppose the proposal :)
Gert Doering
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Andrea Cima <andrea@ripe.net> wrote:
In order to clarify, the proposal only addresses Internet number resource request forms sent to hostmaster@ripe.net. The proposal does not impact the use of auto-dbm@ripe.net.
Thanks. +1 for this proposal then. End of 2014 might be too quick for some people, but you have better usage data than us. If it does not create too much overhead on your side maybe look at extending it or doing a test switch-off for a week or two. Richard
Hello, with each request submited over LIR portal, there's always generated filled form similar to form sent by email directly. So in general, LIR portal should be simple filled form generator (and there're not so many changes in the form in general) and all parsing can be done against form content, source independently. In general I think NCC has enough budged to support multiple input interfaces and keep *everyone* confortable, even some input method seems to be "legacy". And I don't think it's hard in this case. The "minority" using email interface is still large enough to support email requests. Also there should be some operational issues with portal/API interface and then is fine to have another way to submit request (even it's processed later), as traditional email can be easily queued... Even I'm using portal preferably for majority of changes, I would like to have fall-back option. With regards, Daniel On 5.8.2014 12:23, Ingrid Wijte wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We are currently working to streamline the process around resource requests, which is something that was asked for in the RIPE NCC Survey 2013. As you will be aware, we offer request forms in the LIR Portal in addition to the text-based email forms that are published in the RIPE document store:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/current-ripe-documents/request-forms-supportin...
Maintaining two different systems for requests is inefficient, as it requires duplicate work every time there is a policy change. More importantly, the text-based email forms use legacy systems that take engineering time from our staff to maintain.
We contacted many LIRs who made requests using the text-based email forms and in most cases they were using them out of habit or due to specific workflows they had. Most said they would not mind to change to the LIR Portal request forms, or adjust their workflows to use an API.
Today, most requests come via the LIR Portal rather than by email. Since November 2013:
- 95% of IPv6 allocations were issued after an LIR Portal form was sent (909 out of 960) - 91% of IPv4 allocations were requested via the LIR Portal (1,051 out of 1,154) - 75% of ASNs were requested via the LIR Portal (727 out of 975) - From the 25% of ASNs requested via email, 50% of these requests needed several iterations to pass the syntax checks
Based on this feedback and the fact that a clear majority of members are requesting resources through the LIR Portal, we would like to propose the following:
- The text-based email forms would be archived on 1 November 2014. - We would continue to accept email requests until the end of December 2014 to ensure that regular workflows are not disrupted. - The RIPE NCC would offer an API for those members with specific workflows that prevent them from using the request forms in the LIR Portal. - Text-based request forms that may be used by non-members (e.g. ENUM requests) would remain on the website. - To maintain transparency regarding the information needed to obtain resources, the RIPE NCC would publish these procedures on www.ripe.net.
We are interested in your feedback on this proposal:
- Do you agree with the general idea of phasing out text-based request forms? - What specific requirements would need to be addressed by the API? - Would December 2014 be a suitable deadline to give you time to adjust your systems and workflows?
Please share your feedback on the RIPE NCC Services WG mailing list by emailing <ncc-services-wg@ripe.net> before 1 October 2014. If you would like to send us your technical requirements and/or concerns confidentially, please email us at <requestforms@ripe.net>
We will provide an update with a summary of the feedback received, along with any next steps if the proposal is to go ahead.
Looking forward to your input, Best regards,
Ingrid Wijte Assistant Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
On 05/08/2014 19:08, Daniel Suchy wrote:
In general I think NCC has enough budged to support multiple input interfaces and keep *everyone* confortable, even some input method seems to be "legacy".
The RIPE NCC also needs to keep its admin costs under control.
And I don't think it's hard in this case.
I don't have enough information to make a judgement about this, but would note in passing that many of the legacy systems I deal with are troublesome to maintain - much more troublesome than non legacy systems.
The "minority" using email interface is still large enough to support email requests. Also there should be some operational issues with portal/API interface and then is fine to have another way to submit request (even it's processed later), as traditional email can be easily queued...
Even I'm using portal preferably for majority of changes, I would like to have fall-back option.
We will continue to have fall back to the LIR portal. I'm in favour of dumping the email based templates in favour of an API based system, but we need the API based system to be in place for a while to allow time for people to migrate over. If the consultation ends on Oct 1, with phaseout planned for end Dec 2014, then that's 3 months for everyone to migrate over, which isn't long enough. Could you support them for at least 6-12 months after the API system is introduced? Nick
I haven't made up my mind yet, although the forms-based approach has some beauty for us, as it provides a standardised framwork for collecting input from our customers/members. And while I certainly see the arguments from the NCC's end, I am wondering if it is really in the interst of the memebers and the RIR-LIR system at large, to save some money at the NCC and have all the members spend money individually to migrate to an API. Food for thought... Wilfried
Hi, On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 02:10:17PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
I haven't made up my mind yet, although the forms-based approach has some beauty for us, as it provides a standardised framwork for collecting input from our customers/members.
And while I certainly see the arguments from the NCC's end, I am wondering if it is really in the interst of the memebers and the RIR-LIR system at large, to save some money at the NCC and have all the members spend money individually to migrate to an API.
I hear you, but I wonder how many formal requests you send to RS every year? For us, with the end of IPv4, abandonment of IPv4 PI and IPv4 AW, and the non-requirement to get IPv6 assignments approved, the number of formal interactions with the NCC that go through the hostmaster robot (= e-mail forms) has gone down to "a handful per year". So I'm really wondering how many LIRs would be affected in a major way by this change. (Also I see this not only as "saving money", but more as "introducing consistency". I've had more than one fight with the HM robot in the past, due to forms not in sync with the robot, or some fields being declared mandatory by the robot while the docs say 'optional' etc, so I can see really good reasons to junk this 20-year-old piece of software) Gert Doering -- primary RIPE contact for a few LIRs -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Gert Doering wrote: [...]
I hear you, but I wonder how many formal requests you send to RS every year? For us, with the end of IPv4, abandonment of IPv4 PI and IPv4 AW, and the non-requirement to get IPv6 assignments approved, the number of formal interactions with the NCC that go through the hostmaster robot (= e-mail forms) has gone down to "a handful per year".
Agreed, probably a small hand full :-) But this exacly sounds like an agrgument for me to *not* go down the API route, 'cause it is costing time or money. So, this sounds like we'll be pushed to the manual Click-O-Matic stuff in the Portal.... Wilfried
Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:48:49PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
Gert Doering wrote: [...]
I hear you, but I wonder how many formal requests you send to RS every year? For us, with the end of IPv4, abandonment of IPv4 PI and IPv4 AW, and the non-requirement to get IPv6 assignments approved, the number of formal interactions with the NCC that go through the hostmaster robot (= e-mail forms) has gone down to "a handful per year".
Agreed, probably a small hand full :-)
But this exacly sounds like an agrgument for me to *not* go down the API route, 'cause it is costing time or money.
Phrased that way, indeed. (I do not intend to use the API, wo I wasn't truly considering aspects relating to the API at all, but focusing on "would I miss the hostmaster robot").
So, this sounds like we'll be pushed to the manual Click-O-Matic stuff in the Portal....
Yep. Works for me, might not work for everyone... so it's definitely appreciated RS is asking :) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:48:49PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
Gert Doering wrote: [...]
I hear you, but I wonder how many formal requests you send to RS every year? For us, with the end of IPv4, abandonment of IPv4 PI and IPv4 AW, and the non-requirement to get IPv6 assignments approved, the number of formal interactions with the NCC that go through the hostmaster robot (= e-mail forms) has gone down to "a handful per year".
Agreed, probably a small hand full :-)
But this exacly sounds like an agrgument for me to *not* go down the API route, 'cause it is costing time or money.
Phrased that way, indeed. (I do not intend to use the API, wo I wasn't truly considering aspects relating to the API at all, but focusing on "would I miss the hostmaster robot").
We send more than a handful (of text files per year to the hostmaster robot) and would like to see what the new options are before just shutting it down. An API might work for us.
So, this sounds like we'll be pushed to the manual Click-O-Matic stuff in the Portal....
Yep. Works for me, might not work for everyone... so it's definitely appreciated RS is asking :)
Yes. Please show us the API before you just take the robot down. Cheers, Daniel _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
Hi Ingrid, We are one of the NCC's members that still use the email forms. However, they are generated automatically by our internal systems (as David Croft said he does) using information from our customers, not crafted by hand. Whilst we're not averse to changing the systems, we're at the point where given the size of the AW and low rate of requests that go above that, we'd be likely to just drop to entering them manually into the LIR portal if the email forms weren't available. This would be more work for us, but probably less work than adapting our system to use an as-yet unpublished API. I'd agree with others that if you do need to drop the email forms, there needs to be a longer migration period to the API than initially suggested. Cheers, Rob
Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:35:48AM +0100, Rob Evans wrote:
Whilst we're not averse to changing the systems, we're at the point where given the size of the AW and low rate of requests that go above that
I should point out that we got *rid* of the AW earlier this year, so you will never again see a customer request for IPv4 that goes over the AW :-) Just sayin'... Gert Doering -- waving various hats around -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (11)
-
Andrea Cima -
Daniel Stolpe -
Daniel Suchy -
David Croft -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Ingrid Wijte -
Nick Hilliard -
Richard Hartmann -
Rob Evans -
Wilfried Woeber