[db-wg] Proposal regarding Orphaned Objects

HI Job
I am not aware of any document explaining the reasons for this limitation. There is no technical reason why it could not be extended, although the way it is currently implemented would need to be modified.
But think about it from a higher level. If this functionality was to be allowed to all address space documented in the RIPE Database, what would that mean? You are asking the RIPE NCC to give permissions to Party A to override perfectly valid authorisation on objects maintained by Party B. The RIPE NCC may have no contractual relationship with either party, no knowledge of any business relationship between these two parties, no knowledge of any historical deals that may have taken place in the past and has no certain knowledge of who is the authoritative holder of all or any part of this address space.
I don't think you can resolve this issue right now with a technical solution at the database level.
cheers
denis
independent netizen

      From: Job Snijders <job at instituut.net>
 To: denis walker <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> 
Cc: William Sylvester <william.sylvester at addrex.net>; Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>; "db-wg at ripe.net" <db-wg at ripe.net> 
 Sent: Friday, 1 May 2015, 15:47
 Subject: Re: [db-wg] Proposal regarding Orphaned Objects
   
Dear Denis,



On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 12:44:46PM +0000, denis walker wrote:
> The reclaim functionality does cover the related routing and reverse
> delegation objects. That is what it was introduced for. The point you
> are missing is that it ONLY applies to resource objects where the RIPE
> NCC has a contractual relationship with the resource holder (or their
> sponsoring organisation) for that resource. If you want this
> functionality for legacy address space I suspect you need to consider
> the address policy issues before looking at database technical issues.

I learned something new today! Thank you.

Is someone aware of a document that describes why the reclaim
functionality was not made available to any and all inetnum holders? Is
there some kind of technical limitation?

Kind regards,

Job


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20150501/478f2340/attachment.html>