[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

Hi Havard

On 09/03/2016 22:02, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>>>>> I would like abuse-c: much more if it were changed in two ways:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
>>>>>    - permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
>>>>
>>>> This boils down to what I thought would have been the better
>>>> implementation all along.
>>
>> Better is a relative word. It would be better to improve the
>> operational usability and solve the problems you have without breaking
>> the design.
>>
>> I have worked on the design, development and support of this database
>> for 15 years. I know it inside out. I know what problems it has. I
>> have seen the mistakes both new and old users have made. I have seen
>> the crazy things users have done because the database semantics,
>> syntax, business rules allowed it.
>
> Frankly, I fail to see how that is that relevant to the above
> suggestion.

Because when you have a long term perspective on how people have used 
this database, the above suggestions fit into the category of those 
crazy things, imo.

>
>> If you make the changes you are asking for I guarantee within 2 or 3
>> years people will be saying abuse-c is a failure, lets invent
>> something new to fix the mess.
>
> What sort of mess?  Can you please be a bit more explicit?

First of all references to PERSON objects. The original design, from old 
documents I have read over the years, was that a PERSON object is for 
holding personal information about a real person. These should only be 
referenced in ROLE objects and the ROLE objects should be referenced 
every where else in the database. But the constraints were never 
implemented and PERSON and ROLE just became a fuzzy mess. The RIPE NCC 
has spent a lot of time over the years helping people out when a person 
leaves an organisation and HIS PERSON object is referenced in 10s or 
100s of thousands of objects.

I know Gert is particularly upset that he has to create a ROLE object. 
But having some standardisation in how things work, in the long term, 
leads to more efficient usage and better understanding of how the 
database works.

But this also highlights one of my issues with the people who discuss 
these points on these mailing lists. Most of these people have used this 
database for so long they 'just know' how it works. They don't seem to 
understand the problems new users face when trying to understand this 
thing. It is a case of decimalisation vs imperial measurements. Once you 
know the imperial measurements you never forget them, but it takes a 
long time to learn them.

Then there is the issue of allowing abuse-c in multiple places some of 
which will override others. Over time this will get confused, more 
specific values will be missed and reports will be sent to the wrong 
addresses. Also some people will still dig into the database manually 
thinking they know how it works and will inevitably find the wrong values.

>
>> The trouble with these technical mailing lists is it is the same very
>> very small number of people out of the 12k members and other
>> interested parties who keep pushing the same ideas to fix your
>> problems regardless of the consequences. As long as it works OK for
>> you, everything must be fine. None of you are willing to think out of
>> the box. I proposed some options for fixing these problems 2 years ago
>> on RIPE Labs. I am not saying they are the best solutions, but no one
>> has even commented on them in 2 years.
>>
>> This is not an open, bottom up process. This is a cartel of old timers
>> who make all the decisions so they get their own way. This needs to be
>> fixed.
>
> "Thanks" for the ad hominem.  Instead of discussing the merits of the
> above suggestion in a reasoned manner, I get told that I'm part of an
> old-mans-club or worse.  I may be old, but that was nevertheless
> uncalled for, IMHO.

I hit reply but this was intended as a generalised comment. However you 
cannot argue against the facts. Ignoring the AP WG, where half the 
people are trying to maximise the value of IP addresses and the other 
half are trying to minimise costs in the crazy IP gold mine, for the 
technical mailing lists it is the same small group of people who make 
the decisions. In many cases they already know each others viewpoints. 
They can choose to blank out discussions they don't want to even 
acknowledge, like the data model. I have been trying to start a 
discussion on having a review to see if anything would be improved by a 
change. That is so far removed from actually changing anything. But 
still no one will even acknowledge my points. Only Shane and one other 
person have ever commented on any point I have made about the data model 
in the last 8 months. Some 'senior'/'elders'/'long established' people 
on these lists, who respond to other points I make, noticeably cut out 
the bit where I mentioned the data model in the reply. So nothing I said 
about the data model gets perpetuated in any discussion.

But now I don't think there is any point in having that discussion. It 
will be the same people who discuss it and I already know their 
views...leave it alone, change nothing, 'we' don't need it simplifying. 
It will help new members more than established ones, although it could 
benefit all members. And there aren't many new members on these lists. 
Two years ago when I used to go to all RIPE Meetings and talk to people 
about the data model and explain some ideas there was quite a bit of 
interest. But those people don't talk on mailing lists....except the 
previous co-chairs of the DB WG who all liked some of my ideas when I 
presented to them.

The mailing list archives are there for anyone to analyse. I did this 
once and the number of individuals (excluding chairs and NCC staff who 
you expect to be on the lists) who commented on the technical lists over 
a year was very small indeed. I don't expect much to change in the near 
future...

cheers
denis

>
> Best regards,
>
> - Håvard
>