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

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:27:13PM +0200, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote:
> > On 8 Apr 2021, at 13:54, Randy Bush via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Could we consider creating an NWI with a reduced scope?
> > 
> > as an exercise, how minimal can we get?
> 
> Given the draft RFC:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds/?include_text=1
> 
> I suggest the following minimal Solution Definition for an NWI:
> 
> - Implement support for an optional, single "geofeed:" attribute in inetnum and inet6num object types.
> - Validate there is a maximum of either one "remarks: Geofeed" or "geofeed:" attribute per object.
> - Validate the "geofeed:" URL is well-formed and specifies the HTTPS protocol.
> - Include the "geofeed:" attribute in database dumps and split files.
> 
> And inversely, what we could leave out (to simplify the implementation):
> 
> - Do not support non-ASCII values in URL domain names or path (these must be converted beforehand)
> - Do not migrate (re-write) "remarks: Geofeed" values as "geofeed:" attributes
> - Do not validate that the URL is reachable (available) and do not validate the content
> 
> Is this enough to satisfy the draft requirements? Is it enough to be
> useful for the DB-WG?

I think the above is a great start to get a 'minimal viable geofeed'
going! The first priority should be to move things over from 'remarks:'
to a dedicated attribute.

Kind regards,

Job