[db-wg] Comments on RIPE Database requirements progress

Hi,

I will be honest I wasn't even aware of the TF's existence until quite
recently and just looking at the PDF that denis linked, I have some
questions...

> While the RIPE Database Working Group and the RIPE NCC are able to solve a lot of the
operational issues, a high-level approach was needed to establish a
general consensus
about the functionality of the RIPE Database. The RIPE Database
Requirements Task Force
(DBTF) was formed to tackle this challenge and provides here a list of
high-level
requirements and recommendations that attempt to resolve ongoing and
possible future
issues regarding the functionality of the RIPE Database and the data
it contains.

I feel like this is contradictory, if you want a general consensus,
then doing everything in a small closed group is (in my opinion) the
completely wrong thing to do.

Some topics really need a closed task force for a specific thing, but
at least to me, I don't see the need for what seems like a closed
version of the db-wg?

Maybe I am missing something but the db-wg often seems to have barely
anything to do and seems to work quite well for the most part (other
than the privacy related questions).

And I feel like this TF seems unneeded except for the privacy parts,
maybe I am missing something but I don't see why it is needed for all
these things?

While this TF has apparently existed since 2019 and the situation with
regards to some of this has changed since then, the still draft
document mentions things that are no longer relevant/reinforcing
existing things.

I can't be bothered checking the timelines and comparing, but the
entire recommendations section with regards to the IRR seems
irrelevant at this point as I think all of this is implemented/not
having found a good way to implement.
So presenting that at RIPE82 is odd as it doesn't mention that it is
no longer really relevant. (it is just a draft, so idk how the final
version will look)

I mean there is one part...
> Routing information for resources delegated to holders that have not been
authenticated by the RIPE NCC should be labelled as non-authoritative.
This should
apply to both non-RIPE NCC resources and legacy resources with no formal
relationship to the RIPE NCC.

I don't think this has been decided/implemented but I feel that's the
kind of thing that 6 people (who I would assume don't work with these
kinds of resources) shouldn't decide or even recommend behind closed
doors.
I am not sure what is meant by authenticated here, but if the NCC has
a maintainer that has the inetnum object but no formal relationship,
then I personally feel like that maintainer should also be able to
create route objects etc.
(unless the RIPE NCC has a reason to suspect that the maintainer is
not actually the legacy resource holder or whatever)

Once again, I don't have the full story here, and I would appreciate
people filling me in on this in a more condensed way and telling me if
I am wrong here.

-Cynthia


On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:00 PM denis walker via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Colleagues
>
> For the benefit of those who don't often check the mail archives of
> the RIPE Database Task Force there have been 4 meetings in February
> and March with 3 sets of minutes published so far on their mail
> archive which can be found here:
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-db-requirements-tf/
>
> The chairs really appreciate the work done by the TF and acknowledge
> that it is a long and complex task. I have read through these last
> sets of minutes and feel some things need to be clarified. It may just
> be language but the minutes suggest the TF has or will make decisions
> on a number of items, rather than decisions on their recommendations
> for these items. As it says in their charter "The task force is a
> small and focused drafting team of up to six persons and not a
> representative body....Consensus building will take place in the
> appropriate RIPE working groups". Up to now there has been very little
> discussion in any working group and certainly no consensus on any of
> the issues raised as yet. I see the TF making a number of very
> important recommendations which can then be discussed publicly in
> appropriate WGs to see if there is a consensus.
>
> Let me try to clarify or question some specific issues from recent
> minutes. I am doing this here, rather than privately with the TF as I
> have done in the past, as I feel more public discussion is needed on
> this document the TF is producing.
>
> "The task force also discussed what will happen after their final
> report is published. They agreed that the implementation of the
> requirements could be delegated to the relevant working groups but
> mentioned that it will be up to the RIPE Chair team to decide what to
> do next with it."
>
> This implies that the requirements, as suggested by the TF, 'will be'
> implemented and that the implementation details 'could be' delegated
> to WGs. The requirements and recommendations themselves, from the TF,
> need to be discussed in WGs to see if the community even agrees with
> them. That needs to happen before any discussion on possible
> implementation.
>
> "Ed asked if the task force was considering to make a recommendation
> regarding assignments as it seems to drive the creation of a lot of
> unmaintained objects (especially PERSON objects). The task force
> replied that they were working on a recommendation dealing with
> assignments but didn’t reach a final decision yet."
>
> Firstly it should not be possible to create any unmaintained objects
> in the database now. If creating assignments is causing too much
> personal data to be entered into the database it may be the issue of
> personal data that needs to be addressed. The issue of assignments
> (whether or not they are needed) should not be confused with that of
> personal data. These two issues should be considered completely
> separately.
>
> "They [TF] also decided to only publish a final draft ahead of RIPE 82
> and skip the publication of an intermediate draft."
>
> This is unfortunate as it again reduces community discussion and the
> chances for the community to offer any feedback to the TF to be
> incorporated into the final draft.
>
> "The task force discussed Randy and Denis’s recent comments on the
> db-wg mailing list about NWI-2 [historical data]. Ed mentioned that
> this was one final call from Denis to see if there are any interest
> from the community to move NWI-2 forward. As the task force is already
> working on this topic, Ed proposed to inform the db-wg that they can
> close NWI-2. The task force agreed."
>
> The NWIs are action points on the DB-WG. It is for the co-chairs to
> decide on these action points based on discussion and consensus by the
> WG members. The issue of historical data queries has been on and off
> the agenda of the WG for a number of years. I am sure the members of
> the DB-WG will have more to say yet on this issue. There have been
> many individual comments. The key to resolving this issue is to get
> all interested parties to discuss it, openly, at the same time.
>
> "The task force decided to keep the current baseline [registration]
> information data"
>
> I presume you mean 'the TF recommends keeping...'. There has been no
> discussion in any WG on changing this registration data so no
> consensus either way as yet.
>
> "The task force didn’t get enough information and arguments from the
> questionnaire survey results to decide whether or not the legal
> address of resource holders should be published in the RIPE Database.
> The task force will therefore ask the community via email to get more
> feedback on this topic before making a decision."
>
> Again this is an important issue which cannot be decided behind closed
> doors, based on private comments to a non representative body. There
> are some major issues in this list of points. In an open, transparent,
> bottom up, community driven industry these issues can only be decided
> by open discussion and consensus within WGs. We all welcome the
> recommendations put forward by the TF but they are by no means final
> decisions on these issues. They will be the starting points for open,
> public discussion leading to community consensus.
>
> In the meantime, please feel free to comment on and discuss publicly
> on this WG mailing list any issues regarding the TF draft requirements
> document which can be found here
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/the-ripe-database-requirements-task-force-draft-document.pdf
>
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
>