AW: [db-wg] Call for agenda items, DB-WG Meeting during RIPE53, Amsterdam

Winfried Haug wrote:

> Hello,

  Good evening,

> we want you again to discuss the problem with the route-objects which
> need approval from the first owner of a route-object rather than
> from the owner of the inet object itself. 

  fair enough.

> As you didnt repsond to personal emails concerning this topic we want
> you to address this again.

  As the Chair of a Working Group does not take any decisions, there is no
  point in opening private discussions. A WG Chair's task is nothing more and
  nothing less than managing (rather: trying to manage - we all are human)
  the discussion process. The decisions are taken after a thorough discussion
  on the mailing list and/or during the face-to-face meetings by consensus -
  or not - or by way of the more formal PDP (Policy Development Process)
  for the potentially more contentious or fundamental issues.

> There are many good reasons, that a owner
> of the ip block should have the possibility to remove unwanted route
> objects or at least grant new routes objects to be added to the ripe 
> database.
> 
> I see NO reason why a a maintainer of the first route object should 
> have more power than the real owner of the ip space.
> 
> The might be situations where you need 2 route objects (changing
> upstream). If the owner of the first route object doensnt respond or
> is unwilling to help the ip-owner and/or the new isp you are lost.
> 
> We dont think that sending a fax to ripe will be a good solution for
> this design error in the ripe database. 

  Do you intend to present your issue during the next DB-WG Meeting? If
  yes, how many time should I allocate to this topic on the draft agenda?
  Who would be the presenter?

  In case you think a more formal process is appropriate then this is the
  reference for more information: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/index.html

  In any case, I think the Routing-WG and/or the Address Policy WG would
  be the first choice for you to start this particular dicussion - because
  the DB-WG is "just" a group to provide the tools and mechanisms, and not the
  policies and/or the semantics, or the protection guidelines, for the registry
  data.

  In any case, I guess there will be some RFC/s that need/s changing if and
  when we can reach consensus in the community along the lines of your thoughts.

> Winfried Haug
> 
> Headlight Housing Factory  | Rechenzentrum:
> Azenbergstrasse 35         | Neue Bruecke 8
> D-70174 Stuttgart          | D-70173 Stuttgart
> Fon: +49 711 2840   0      | e-mail: wh at headlight.de
> Fax: +49 711 2840 999      | http://www.headlight.de  

  With the best regards, looking foreward to your active contribution,
  WW144
 _________________________________:_____________________________________
  Wilfried Woeber                 : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
  UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
  Universitaetsstrasse 7          : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
  A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe  : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~