[db-wg] Proposed change 2003.3: "reclaim:"-like functionality

Hi,
Are we going to introduce a new attribute for this, or just change
the database behavior to allow deletion by 'creator' maintainers?

Cheers,
Sanjaya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: db-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:db-wg-admin at ripe.net] On 
> Behalf Of Shane Kerr
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2003 12:55 AM
> To: db-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [db-wg] Proposed change 2003.3: "reclaim:"-like functionality
> 
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> This is one of a number of proposed changes to the way the RIPE
> Database works.  These are changes that are intended to make the
> database work more consistently, as well as provide an increased level
> of security and control to users.
> 
> Please have a look, and discuss it here.
> 
> 
> [2003.3] Implementation of "reclaim:"-like functionality
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> Any maintainer that would have been able to authorise the creation of
> an object can authorise the deletion of the same object.
> 
> If creation of an object requires authorisation from multiple
> maintainers (e.g. route objects that require authorisation from an
> aut-num and an inetnum), then any of those maintainers may authorise
> the deletion.
> 
> Motivation:
> 
> The maintainer of an object is responsible for insuring that the data
> in the object is accurate.  For hierarchical objects the maintainer
> can delegate responsibility for a subset.  However, under the current
> implementation, there is no way for the maintainer to delete objects
> created and delegated to maintainers who should not or will not have
> access to the resources represented by these objects any more.
> 
> For example, if the holder of portable address space changes ISP, then
> the address space will be advertised from a different AS.  This means
> that the old route object is invalid and should be deleted.  However,
> if the old ISP maintains the object, then the holder of the space has
> no way to delete the old object.  This old route object will prevent
> the creation of a new route object that represents the new
> arrangement.
> 
> The "reclaim:" attribute defined in RPSS allows for very similar
> functionality, but it may not be added to space that already has
> objects.  This means that any existing more-specific objects cannot be
> deleted by the maintainers of the less-specific objects.  For the case
> of old objects - the ones most likely to need such deletion - this
> means that the "reclaim:" attribute does not help.
> 
> The "reclaim:" attribute also has a different syntax, depending on the
> specific object type that it is present in.  This complicates parsing
> of objects.
> 
> -- 
> Shane Kerr
> RIPE NCC
>