[db-wg] Decision on NWI-4 INETNUM status values

Hi Denis,

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:17 PM denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> > I agree with everyone else that ensuring the published contact data
> > are accurate is most important. Does that require a software solution?
> > Could it be accomplished with a process change? For instance, if an
> > LIR leases a block to a network operator and shares some kind of
> > documentation with the RIPE NCC, could the RIPE NCC delegate control
> > of the contact data to the network operator for the duration of the
> > lease?
>
> It is not only the contact details that are wrong. If an allocation is
> leased/rented to another LIR how should this be documented in the RIPE
> Database?

What needs to be accomplished and why? Do we need to know the
ownership/lease status of address space in the RIPE Database, or is
accurate contact and IRR data enough?

> Currently many of these blocks are being assigned to the
> receiving LIR. But they most likely use this address space in the same
> way as they use all their other allocations. It is quite possible many
> of these blocks are being sub-assigned by the receiving LIR. But that
> is not allowed with the database syntax. So the true nature and usage
> of this address space is unknown.

The RIPE Registry should hold the full set of data - however we define
that. But the RIPE Database can display a subset. That is why I am
asking whether it makes sense to approach this from the perspective of
registering the fact of a lease with the RIPE Registry. That way, we
could avoid making changes to the RIPE Database that risk breaking
widely deployed tools that rely on the existing data model.

And maybe we do need to change the RIPE Database model. But it's worth
checking if there's a less disruptive change that could work well for
everyone first.

Kind regards,

Leo