[db-wg] Role of RIPE NCC in geofeed, abuse-c checks, etc

Hi Denis,

This message is in response to several in the discussion .

In brief: I have seen network operators distraught because their
network was misclassified as being in the wrong geography for the
services their customers needed to access and they had no way to fix
that situation. I feel that publishing geofeed data in the RIPE
Database would be a good thing to do as it helps network operators
share data in a structured way and should reduce the overall amount of
pain from misclassified networks.

I personally would like to see an agreement on your draft problem
statement and some feedback from the RIPE NCC before focusing on some
of the more detailed questions you raised.

I also agree with you that accurate and reliable data is important. But...

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 7:19 AM denis walker via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:

[...]

> You say most consumers of this geofeed data
> will be software capable of validating the csv file. What will this
> software do when it finds invalid data? Just ignore it? Will this
> software know who to report data errors to? Will it have any means to
> follow up on reported errors?

I would have thought that anyone implementing a parser for this data
would also be able to query the database for a tech-c and report
validation failures. Based on my previous interactions with the
network operators who have suffered misclassification, I am confident
that there is a strong incentive for networks to publish well
formatted accurate data and to fix any errors quickly.

That said, there are many possible ways to reduce the risk of badly
formatted data. For instance, the RIPE NCC could offer a tool to
create the relevant files to be published through the LIR Portal or as
a standalone tool. This is why I'd like to see feedback from the RIPE
NCC ahead of an implementation discussion.

> Services like geofeed are good ideas. But if the data quality or
> accessibility deteriorates over time it becomes useless to misleading.
> That is why I believe centralised validating, testing and reporting
> are helpful. I think the RIRs are well positioned for doing these
> tasks and should do more of them.

I agree with you that defining what data means and keeping it accurate
is important. But in the case of geo data, could the RIPE NCC validate
the content as well as the data structures? I'd have thought that the
publishers and the users of the data would be in the best position to
do that. Am I wrong?

Kind regards,

Leo