[db-wg] Clear up of old issues - Whiepages

> Just a side point for people to think about, should the NCC only offer
to protect ROLE objects that do not contain personal data?

I do not think so, I still want to keep the functionality of
whitepages, I only agree with removing duplicate implementations of
it.

I know that both me and several others do use handles in various cases
like contact information in presentations.
While you can argue about how valid this use case is, I think the cat
is kinda out of the bag, and we need to keep supporting this use case
for those who explicitly say they want it.
Unless the NCC legal team has a problem with it that is, but I hope
and would think they don't as these are cases when the person in
question has explicitly requested it to be protected.

-Cynthia

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:18 PM denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Cynthia
>
> I just checked and currently there are only 4 people using the
> whitepages and 1 of them is NCC staff. Certainly they will be
> contacted before deleting the feature.
>
> Why is it important to know what objects are protected from deletion?
> If it is not referenced by any resource object (directly or
> indirectly) and it is still in the DB in 3 months time, it is
> protected.
>
> Just a side point for people to think about, should the NCC only offer
> to protect ROLE objects that do not contain personal data? The only
> reason for protecting objects is for contact details needed for other
> services by non resource holders. Perhaps we should not be protecting
> personal data that is not related to resources. Contact details do not
> need to be personal.
>
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 01:26, Cynthia Revström <me at cynthia.re> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Denis,
> >
> > While I kinda support this, I also like how the whitepages feature
> > allows you to easily see if an object was protected from deletion or
> > not.
> >
> > Would it be possible to add some kind of extra data in the whois
> > response for protected objects? (like the data about abuse email when
> > you query for an ASN or IP address/prefix)
> >
> > Regardless, given the low number of protected handles, I think it
> > makes sense to contact them before doing this and protect them using
> > the new method unless they object to it.
> >
> > -Cynthia
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:56 PM denis walker via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Colleagues
> > >
> > > The co-chairs recently had a zoom meeting with the RIPE NCC. One of
> > > the things we discussed was clearing up a number of old issues. We
> > > need to clear the deck and move on with new and perhaps more relevant
> > > issues. We will address a number of issues for the last time. In some
> > > cases the chairs will make a recommendation. As these are quite old
> > > issues, we will take silence as consensus for the chair's
> > > recommendation.
> > >
> > > The first issue is Whitepages. This is a feature from about 10+ years
> > > ago. It was intended to preserve the PERSON object in the RIPE
> > > Database and protect it from automatic deletion if it is not
> > > referenced from any operational data. It was to use the RIPE Database
> > > as a phone book for well known people in the industry who may not be
> > > resource holders. There are many other ways to provide such contact
> > > details today. It was only ever used by a handful of people. The RIPE
> > > NCC now has other ways to preserve ROLE objects if needed, for example
> > > if used by RIPE Atlas users.
> > >
> > > The chairs recommend removing this feature from the RIPE Database. If
> > > you need a ROLE object to be preserved, contact ripe-dbm at ripe.net to
> > > discuss.
> > >
> > > cheers
> > > denis
> > > co-chair DB-WG
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/