This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Mon Oct 15 14:21:00 CEST 2018
On 15 Oct 2018, at 13:00, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote: > > If we deconstruct RIPE-NONAUTH’s current state of affairs we already are facing a irreversible concept: if one deletes an object in RIPE-NONAUTH, it can never be restored. If someone deletes their nonauth route/route6, they’re making an explicit request for deletion. It may be wrong and they may have made a mistake but the outcome will happen as the result of an explicit, password authorised instruction to the IRRDB to take a specific action. This proposal suggests deleting these objects on the basis of implicit requests via a third party without any feedback mechanism to either the creator of the roa or the holder of the route object and where the person creating the roa may not even be aware of the consequences of their actions. This violates the principle of least astonishment. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]