[db-wg] country codes in the RIPE Database (was: ORGANISATION country code)

Hi Leo

>From my perspective as an analyst it's getting interesting now... Yes
we can consider it as a complex problem needing a complex
solution...but are either really complex? Maybe it is the environment
that is complex and not this specific problem or solution.

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 01:29, Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
>
> This mailing list. You said it.
>
> Lots of people from different types of organisations use data that
> helps them without deep-diving into the communities that produce it.

The community that produces this data doesn't dive very deep either.

>
> Half the problem is that the RIPE community has spent 20 years writing
> documentation that is barely glanced at by developers who decide that
> this data means what they want it to mean.

And half of those developers who barely glance at this documentation
are the ones whose developments create this data.

>  But do people from the RIPE
> community engage with the people who run GeoIP databases?

Only a handful of the RIPE community engages with this mailing list,
so I doubt many of them engage with GeoIP people about the RIPE
Database.

> How can we
> complain that people misunderstand us if we don't actively engage with
> them about what they need the data to mean?

The difficulty here is defining 'people' and 'us' and the overlap and
how and where active engagement could take place and where to
publicise any outcome of such engagement that would make the outcome
effective.

The problem is simple:
-"country:" in resource objects has never been defined
-that fact is well documented in places no one reads
-it is discussed in places creators and users of this data don't follow
-it is a mandatory attribute so all resource objects must have this data
-no one knows what the resource holders mean by it
-no one knows what consumers perceive it to mean
-by using it to influence geolocation we probably pollute the wider
GeoIP data set
-we have spent 20+ years telling people they can't use it for GeoIP
but we know they still do
-if we give it a definition now, many creators and consumers will
never get the message

So the solution is also simple
-no registry data depends on it
-no one can rely on it
-it has no value in it's indeterminate state
---so delete it

THEN we can have a discussion about what 'people' want 'us' to
provide. Maybe a new, optional "geo-country:" attribute with a clear
definition from the start and guidelines on usage, with a name that
implies what it means even if you don't read anything about it. By
deleting the current useless data we might get a few more people to
join the discussion on how to move forward.

But there is another interesting aspect to this. We had a lively
discussion last year on "geofeed:". Lots of people from the community
were involved in that discussion. Where are they now? This discussion
has turned into a more general debate about the use of the RIPE
Database for GeoIP purposes. Why were so many people so interested in
"geofeed:" but avoid a more general geolocation discussion? Why are so
few people publicly arguing for or against this use of the RIPE
Database and how to do it? (...and one speaks as I am writing this
email.)

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG


>
> Kind regards,
>
> Leo