[db-wg] First round of cleanup of Database WG NWIs

Colleagues

The Task Force (TF) made the recommendation in NWI-17, but did not
give any justification for it. They said "access to this data should
be limited to what is necessary for the most common type of use
cases.". The obvious follow up question is 'why should it be limited?'
It is (or should be) all operational data, not personal. I'm not sure
what problem we are trying to solve here with NWI-17. I really don't
see any benefit to anyone by creating a split level access to a
relatively small range of historical operational data items. The TF
went on to say "Regarding research usage, the task force recommends
that the RIPE NCC grants access to a wider set of historical data to
researchers...". Again, why? What makes researchers special? Why
should they be allowed a privileged access that no one else has? How
do you even define 'researcher' in this context? Also looking at
things with a high level mindset and ignoring the detail, it is easy
to make recommendations that sound simple. The implementation and
ongoing management by the RIPE NCC of a split level historical query
service would be a nightmare. I am not just talking about the software
changes needed, but all aspects of implementing and managing this
service. I will explain this in detail in another email (if needed).

Ed clarified that all objects are available for historical queries
except PERSON and ROLE. I'm not sure how much the set objects are
historically queried. I suspect the two main objects of interest are
INETNUM and ORGANISATION. Let's look at the INETNUM object and remove
those attributes Ed said are filtered for privacy. Then remove the
redundant attributes like source: and date stamps that are included in
the time stamps on the query response. Perhaps some of the optional
mnt- attributes and geoloc:, language: that the majority of objects
don't contain. Also country: that is meaningless. This is what we end
up with:

inetnum:
netname:
descr:
geofeed:
org:
sponsoring-org:
abuse-c:
status:
remarks:
mnt-by:
mnt-lower:

Are we seriously talking about splitting this small number of data
items into two levels? One set that everyone can see and another set
that a select group of people can request to see. Many of these
attributes are optional and most assignment objects (which are most of
the INETNUM objects in the database) don't contain them. So the core
data of an INETNUM object is:

inetnum:
netname:
descr:
status:
remarks:
mnt-by:

If people are mostly querying allocation objects it might look more like this:

inetnum:
netname:
descr:
org:
status:
remarks:
mnt-by:
mnt-lower:

Looking at the ORGANISATION object in the same way, we end up with a
basic data set for a type: LIR object as:

organisation:
org-name:
org-type:
descr:
remarks:
country:
phone:
abuse-c:
mnt-ref:
mnt-by:

The high cost and low (if any) benefit of splitting this data is
completely pointless. Or maybe it will be split on object types. But
given that few people are likely to be querying the history of some of
the object types, like maybe set objects and poems, does it still make
any sense? Do we really have a problem making such a small range of
data items available to anyone who is interested in this operational
data? If there is a concern that some personal data still slips
through, maybe in descr:, then perhaps it needs another legal review,
not a redesign.

My recommendation is that we drop NWI-17.

cheers
denis

========================================================
DISCLAIMER
Everything I said above is my personal, professional opinion. It is
what I believe to be honest and true to the best of my knowledge. No
one in this industry pays me anything. I have nothing to gain or lose
by any decision. I push for what I believe is for the good of the
Internet, in some small way. Nothing I say is ever intended to be
offensive or a personal attack. Even if I strongly disagree with you
or question your motives. Politicians question each other's motives
all the time. RIPE discussion is often as much about politics and self
interest as it is technical. I have a style of writing that some may
not be familiar with, others sometimes use it against me. I also have
OCD. It makes me see the world slightly differently to others. It
drives my mind's obsessive need for detail. I can not change the way I
express my detailed opinions. People may choose how to interpret them.
========================================================

On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 10:36, Peter Hessler via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Hello Working Group,
>
> As you all know, the Database Working Group uses a different process from
> other working groups, and have Numbered Work Items instead of
> Policy Development Process.
>
> We've had many Items on the list, and some have been there since we created
> the NWI process.  So, the Chairs have decided that we need to go through
> and clean up the list so we can complete the items we wish to complete.
>
> For this round, we'd like us to review two NWIs that are similar to each
> other.
>
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/numbered-work-items/
>
>  NWI-2  - Displaying history for database objects where available
>  NWI-17 - Historical data
>
> We ask the working group to discuss these two Items and decide if the WG
> can confirm the problem statements and provide feedback if either of
> these Items are still a problem that should be persued.
>
> We ask for discussion on list until Friday July 5th.
>
> Peter Hessler
> on behalf of the Database WG Chairs
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/