- ripe-db-requirements-tf - mailman.ripe.net

Notes from 16 April 2021 Meeting
by Boris Duval 03 May '21

03 May '21

Dear all, Here's the meeting notes from our last call. Let me know if something’s missing. *RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes* 16 April 2021 Meeting Attendees: Boris Duval, James Kennedy, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Bijal Sanghani, Ed Shryane 1. Reviewing and editing the routing requirements The task force reviewed the routing requirements from its current draft. -- Requirement: "The RIPE Database will provide routing information for: - Internet number resources delegated by the RIPE NCC. - Internet number resources which fall under the terms of the "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders" policy. - Other Internet number resources which already have routing information in the RIPE Database." Shane mentioned that the last point, “Other Internet number resources which already have routing information in the RIPE Database”, was an attempt to capture all information not covered by the points above. James proposed to ask the RIPE NCC Registry Services department to double check if there was such information in the RIPE Database. Boris will follow up with Registry Services. -- Requirement: “The holders of these resources will be authenticated by the RIPE NCC and only they will be authorised to manage routing information for the resources that they hold.” Shane clarified that some of the language in the requirements such as “authenticated” and “authorised” refer to generic computing terms and are not specific to the current RIPE Database processes. James and Ed proposed to specify who is covered by this requirement. Shane suggested the following text: “The holders of these resources will be authenticated by the RIPE NCC or by the holders of parent resources, and only the holders will be authorised to manage routing information for the resources that they hold.” -- Requirement: “It should not be possible to add new routing information to the RIPE Database for address resources delegated by other Regional Internet Registries.” Shane asked if this there was already a policy for this. Ed confirmed that there was one. -- Routing origin information Shane mentioned that it’s important to include RPKI in this section. James and Ed mentioned that there are interlinks between the RIPE Database and RPKI and that should be taken into account when drafting the requirements. Shane added the following text to clarify these connections: “Maintaining accurate routing origin (address prefix and autonomous system number) information is a requirement of the RIPE Database. • Routing origin information is published via route: / route6: objects in the RIPE Database. • ROA are created in RPKI to represent routing origin information. In the RIPE Database, this routing information is stored using certain Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL). Routing origin information is also stored in the RPKI Database. There is no direct link between these two databases, although both support authorization from address. (Although both address and ASN are needed for routing origination, only the address holder’s authorisation is used currently.)” -- Routing relationship information James pointed out that a lot of import/export lines in aut-nums are not maintained. Shane mentioned that it’s hard to analyse usage. Ed volunteered to check the query logs to see if there are queries for this object. Bijal proposed to ask the Routing Working Group about this topic and suggested phasing it out if that’s not being used. Shane will work on developing the text. -- RPSL Shane proposed to find a better way to represent routing policies than RPSL as it’s an outdated code language which is notoriously hard to work with. He also suggested to mention that RPSL was not a requirement of the RIPE Database. Bijal added that there was not a lot of support for RPSL in the community. Ed mentioned that it’s also possible to represent routing in JSON and XML. Ed also asked if the task force should document the drawbacks of RPSL or if this was already too detailed. Peter mentioned that if we were to recommend an alternative, we will have to be careful about not getting too much into details (e.g. object level) as this will be out of scope for the task force. Bijal mentioned that is will be worth looking at the advantages of RPSL instead of the drawbacks to save time. Shane suggested the following text: “RPSL is not a requirement for the RIPE Database. It is an old standard that never fully matured and has not been maintained over the decades. As such, the RIPE Routing working group should look at formal deprecation of RPSL, with the co-operation of the RIPE Database working group. The specific recommendation is not to adopt a new syntax such as XML or JSON, but rather to consider what routing information is useful to operators and design a way of representing that. Until RPSL is re-evaluated, the RIPE Database must continue to support it.” -- RPKI Database Shane and Peter mentioned that the RIPE community should consider whether or not RPKI is best treated as a community resource - like the RIPE Database - or as a RIPE NCC service. This should be highlighted in the document. Ed mentioned that there was an on-going effort to delegate RPKI to resource holders. 2. Next Meeting The next meeting will take place on 20 April 2021.

1 0

Notes from 12 April 2021 Meeting
by Boris Duval 19 Apr '21

19 Apr '21

Dear all, Here's the meeting notes from our last call. *RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes* 12 April 2021 Meeting Attendees: Boris Duval, Nick Hilliard, James Kennedy, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Bijal Sanghani, Ed Shryane, Maria Stafyla Agenda: 1. Document writing a) Document overview The task force reviewed the current document and decided to focus on working on the requirements section and create a new section dedicated to data management principles. b) Appointing topic owners The task force appointed topic owners for each of the current open topics in the requirements sections as well as for the new data management principles sections. c) Scheduling editing meetings The task force decided to schedule individual meetings for each topic to work on the content. Boris will send a Doodle to the task force and book meeting slots for those meetings. d) Timeline The task force still aims to publish a final document before RIPE 82. 2. Collecting feedback on open issues a) BoF (date, announcement, agenda) The task force agreed to schedule the BoF on Wednesday, 5 May 2021 from 16:00-17:30. The meeting should only last one hour but the extra 30 minute buffer can be handy if there is a lot of feedback. b) Emails to WGs In order to have sufficient feedback on open topics (legal address, personal data in historical queries, and PERSON objects) before the BoF, the task force drafted a series of emails that they will send to the DB-WG mailing list. As these topics also concern other working groups, Bijal proposed to inform the chairs of the other working groups that these discussions will take place in the DB-WG mailing list. 3. Next Meetings The next meetings will be scheduled in April and will focus on editing specific topics in the requirements document.

1 0

Notes from 26 March 2021 Meeting
by Boris Duval 07 Apr '21

07 Apr '21

Dear all, Here's the meeting notes from our last call. *RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes* 26 March 2021 Meeting Attendees: Boris Duval, Nick Hilliard, James Kennedy, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Bijal Sanghani, Maria Stafyla Agenda: 1. DBTF questionnaire review and next steps Maintaining an authoritative and accurate registry of Internet number resources C) Resources Registration Requirements The task force agreed on the following recommendation: “As resource holders have full responsibility over their allocation(s), they are free to make assignments or not. However, if a resource holder wants to sub-assign part of their resources to another entity, the task force strongly recommends to document this change in the RIPE Database. Parallel to that, making assignments should not be a prerequisite to get new Internet number resources.” Peter and Nick pointed out that it will be good to add data minimisation as part of the general data management principles in the draft. D) Historical Information The DBTF will wait for the BoF before taking a decision on how to deal with historical information. The main issue revolves around personal data being stored in historical information. Ed will check if it is technically possible to apply more filtering in order to minimise the risk of having returned personal data in historical queries. Facilitating Internet operations and coordination A) PERSON Objects The task force considered to keep PERSON objects but make it harder to create them by adding a disclaimer about personal data. This will help decrease the amount of unmaintained personal data. The task force will come up with a recommendation on this topic and will bring it for discussion at the BoF. 2. Document Structure Nick proposed to have two documents instead of one. One document with general principles (similar to the current draft) and one document with all recommendations and suggestions from the task force. The task force liked the idea and will discuss it further. 3. BoF Planning After reviewing the original timeline, the task force decided to organise a BoF early May. 4. Next meeting The next meeting will take place in April.

1 0

Notes from 19 March 2021 Meeting
by Boris Duval 25 Mar '21

25 Mar '21

Dear all, Here's the meeting notes from our last call. *RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes* 19 March 2021 Meeting Attendees: Boris Duval, Nick Hilliard, James Kennedy, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Bijal Sanghani, Maria Stafyla Agenda: 1. DBTF questionnaire review and next steps A) Baseline information The task force decided to keep the current baseline information data and recommend using role-specific email addresses whenever possible. B) Legal Address 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. C) Resources Registration Requirements The task force discussed formulating a new recommendation regarding assignments. Assignments were historically useful to justify the allocation of new resources but as this is no longer the case (due to IPv4 runout), the role for assignments need to be reevaluated. The task force discussed when and where assignments are needed and who is responsible for what. They will continue this discussion during their next call. The task force didn’t have enough time to review all of the questionnaire’s results and action points during their meeting and decided to schedule another call to finish their review. 2. Next meeting The next meeting will take place on Friday, 26 March 2021.

1 0

Notes from 26 February 2021 Meeting
by Boris Duval 10 Mar '21

10 Mar '21

Dear all, Here's the meeting notes from our last call. *RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes* 26 February 2021 Meeting Attendees: Boris Duval, Nick Hilliard, James Kennedy, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Bijal Sanghani, Maria Stafyla, Edward Shryane Agenda: 1. DBTF questionnaire review and next steps The task force was pleased with the number of replies (49) and general quality of the feedback provided. Maria, Ed and Boris will summarise the questionnaire’s results and present actionable insights to the task force before next meeting. 2. Timeline review and BoF planning The task force decided to schedule a BoF mid-April and will soon choose a date. They also decided to only publish a final draft ahead of RIPE 82 and skip the publication of an intermediate draft. 3. NWI-2/historical data discussion The task force discussed Randy and Denis’s recent comments on the db-wg mailing list about NWI-2. 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. 4. Next Meeting The next DBTF call will take place in March 2021.

1 0

DBTF - Notes from 12 February 2021 Meeting
by Boris Duval 26 Feb '21

26 Feb '21

Dear all, Here's the meeting notes from our last call. *RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes* 12 February 2021 Meeting Attendees: Boris Duval, Nick Hilliard, James Kennedy, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Bijal Sanghani, Maria Stafyla, Edward Shryane Agenda: 1. DBTF questionnaire The task force discussed feedback from the db-wg mailing list about the questionnaire. As the number of replies was relatively low (20), the task force decided to postpone the questionnaire’s deadline to 22 February 2021. 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. 2. Assignments in the RIPE Database 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. 3. Timeline and next steps The task force agreed to talk about their third BoF at their next meeting. They will also update their current timeline to be on track with publishing a final draft before RIPE 82. 4. Other Updates Sara is changing career and will be also be leaving the task force. As the task force is almost done with its work, all task force members agreed that it won’t be necessary to replace Sara. 5. Next Meeting The next DBTF call will take place on 26 February 2021.

1 0

Notes from 13 January 2021 Meeting
by Boris Duval 22 Jan '21

22 Jan '21

Dear all, Here's the meeting notes from our last call. Let me know if something’s missing! I’ll send them to the public list tomorrow. *RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes* 13 January 2021 Meeting Attendees: Boris Duval, James Kennedy, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Bijal Sanghani, Maria Stafyla, Edward Shryane Agenda: 1. Finalising the questionnaire The task force discussed and edited their new questionnaire that will be presented to the community during the last week of January. Their main challenge was to adapt the questionnaire to get relevant feedback from the community and try to build consensus on several topics. The questionnaire will go through a last review round before being published. 2. Next call The next DBTF call will take place in February.

1 0

Notes from 18 December 2020 Meeting
by Boris Duval 23 Dec '20

23 Dec '20

Dear all, Here's the meeting notes from our last call. *RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes* 18 December 2020 Meeting Attendees: Boris Duval, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Sara Marcolla, Edward Shryane, Maria Stafyla Agenda: 1. Questionnaire Review The task force continued to review the questionnaire that will be sent out to the community in January to collect feedback on the current draft. One of the main challenges is how to best frame questions, so that the task force gets qualitative feedback from the community. Nick and Shane will look into coming up with questions for the routing requirements section. The task force will fine-tune the questionnaire and finalise it during their next call in January 2021. 2. Timeline Review The task force reviewed and agreed on the following timeline: 18 January 2021: DBTF to finalise questionnaire (sign off) 25 January 2021: Publication and promotion of the questionnaire 8 February 2021: End of questionnaire + discussing result and asking clarifying questions to the community 8 March 2021: Publication of an intermediate draft including feedback from the community 17 March 2021: 3rd BoF (if needed) to discuss the new draft and build consensus on potential open issues 12 April 2021: Publication of the final draft and last call for comment 3 May 2021: Final draft accepted and listing open issues (if any) 3. DB-WG discussion on historical data The task force mentioned the recent discussion about the use of historical data in the DB-WG mailing list: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2020-December/006737.html As historical data is addressed in the questionnaire, the task force will ask the community for more feedback on this topic. 4. Editing the current draft The task force will look at the current draft and see if it needs to be updated based on the feedback already received from the community (especially the routing requirements section). 5. Diagram review Boris presented a diagram representing the relationships between the RIPE Registry, the RIPE Database, the RIPE IRR and the RPKI Database (see attachment). The task force gave his feedback and mentioned that it will be good to include this overview in the final draft. Peter added than having a second more detailed diagram might be useful for internal use to shed some light on some of the data relationships between the different parts of the RIPE Database. 6. Next Meeting The next meeting will take place in January 2021.

1 0

Notes from 9 December 2020 Meeting
by Boris Duval 18 Dec '20

18 Dec '20

Dear all, Here's the meeting notes from our last call. *RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes* 9 December 2020 Meeting Attendees: Boris Duval, James Kennedy, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Sara Marcolla, Bijal Sanghani, Edward Shryane, Marco Schmidt, Maria Stafyla Agenda: 1. Questionnaire Maria and Boris presented a questionnaire to the task force that will help them get more feedback from the community on the current draft. The questionnaire is asking questions on all recommendations and open items listed in the latest draft. The task force agreed with the overall structure but mentioned that some questions needed fine-tuning as they were too open. They also mentioned that it will be good to have the possibility to contact respondents (if they opt-in) to ask follow-up questions when needed. Maria and Boris will work on the questionnaire and present a new version to the task force at their next call. In the meantime, the task force will review the questions and share their feedback if needed. 2.Timeline The task force discussed a 2021 timeline to collect feedback (via the questionnaire and a possible BoF), build consensus and publish the final document ahead of RIPE 82. 3. Q&A with Marco Schmidt from RIPE NCC’s Registry Services Department The task force asked Marco Schmidt, representing Registry Services, several questions regarding his department’s work and the RIPE Database. The topics discussed included: the need to document assignments post-IPv4 run out, efforts from the RIPE NCC to keep the database accurate, how to deal with aged information and his recommendations regarding the future of the database. 4. Next Call The next call will take place on 18 December 2020.

1 0

Notes from 23 November 2020 Meeting
by Boris Duval 30 Nov '20

30 Nov '20

Dear all, Here's the meeting notes from our last call. *RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes* 23 November 2020 Meeting Attendees: Boris Duval, Nick Hilliard, James Kennedy, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Bijal Sanghani, Maria Stafyla Agenda: 1. Feedback from the BoF The DBTF discussed what happened during the BoF and reviewed some of the feedback provided by attendees. For example, how to differentiate data maintained by the RIPE NCC and data maintained by resource holders in the draft. The task force will follow up on this feedback and integrate it in the new draft when relevant. The task force also mentioned that there was little feedback during the session and suggested that it might be due to the busy period for the industry (October-November) and lack of time from participants to review the draft. Bijal will send a reminder to the ripe-list to review the draft. 2. Get more community input As mentioned earlier, the task force was disappointed by the lack of feedback during the BoF and shared ideas to get more community input. One of the solutions proposed was to build a questionnaire to invite a guided discussion on specific sections of the draft. Maria and Boris agreed to start working on this questionnaire. 3. Meeting with the RIPE NCC’s Registry Services Department The task force is interested to meet with someone from the RIPE NCC’s Registry Resources Department to get input on different topics. Maria and Boris proposed to invite Nikolas Pediaditis, Registry Services and Policy Development Manager, to their next call. The task force agreed and will prepare questions ahead of the meeting. 4. Next Call The next call will take place in December 2020.

1 0