[db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:27:28PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> There's no need for a new proposal: a notification mechanism and a
> grace period can be built into either the proposal or else the
> operating procedure.
> 
> Some of these old route objects have been there for many years.
> Another couple of weeks isn't going to cause a huge amount of harm.

I'm hesitant to add such things because we don't have such a
notification & grace period in BGP Origin Validation process when
processing BGP route announcements either. Those are real time and a
such a good control feedback loop. I think it'll significantly
complicate the effects of the policy proposal by introducing
back-out/undelete/grace-period elements.

Regarding the notification process itself, it may be tricky to
programmatically find the appropiate contacts to send the notification.
The route/route6 object's "notify:" attribute (when present) is perhaps
not entirely suitable in this context - since that mail address may not
point to the resource holder but rather to a previous owner, an
adversary or simply the wrong people.

If it is acceptable to the community that a percentage of notifications
won't arrive at all, or go to the entirely wrong people - I'm willing to
entertain the possibility of amending the proposal to add one-off
notifications when an object is deleted. But I do think it'll lead to
more confusion, rather than be useful.

Kind regards,

Job