[db-wg] ad-hoc RIPE db-wg meeting at IETF93

Hi Job

On 26/07/2015 20:04, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 07:39:36PM +0200, denis wrote:
>>>      - in essence re-introduce 'auth: none' for out of region
>>>      objects, in doing so make the rpsl-maintainer implicit.
>>
>> This is not a good idea. This 'implicitness' requires changes to the
>> software to create exceptions for authorisation on creation of certain
>> object types. The authorisation software is already nightmarishly
>> complex.
>
> I don't agree with your assessment. Don't forget that the responsibility
> for the Whois software code quality lays primiarily with RIPE NCC staff.
> I am confident they'll inform us about potential code complexity issues.

I understand where you are coming from. But keep in mind that the 
software is open source so anyone in the community can study this code 
(if they want to) and appreciate the complexity that already exists in 
both the software and data model.

Also keep in mind the way this process works. The community asks for 
something, generally without any regard to how it will be implemented. 
The RIPE NCC has a lot of wonderful guys who like to give the community 
what they ask for. And as Shane often says, "it's software, you can do 
anything you like with software". Of course he is right, but there is 
always a cost.

Given that the community/membership is, to a large extent, reluctant to 
even discuss the issue of simplifying the data model and bringing the 
software design into the 21st century, things just get more complex over 
time. Then the whole software has to be re-written again, as they have 
done twice already, just to keep it maintainable but without making any 
substantial improvements.

I also think re-introducing and documenting the concept of "auth:none", 
after it was deprecated about 12 years ago, and at a time when security 
is a regular discussion topic, is bad PR for this industry. I know the 
public password achieves the same result, but at least with the password 
you have to know what to do with it and 'do something'. With "auth:none" 
you do nothing and things 'just work'. We should be fixing the issue of 
the public password not making cosmetic changes like this.

cheers
denis

>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>