[db-wg] Complying with Mail Provider Requirements When Sending Mail from Whois

Denis,

On 21/03/2024 04.03, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> -we have no documented business requirements for either the RIPE
> Database or a public registry

This is simply not true.

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-767/

All because you disagree with the published requirements does not mean 
that they do not exist.

> A Task Force was set up, I thought, to document the business
> requirements for the RIPE Database and public registry. All they did
> was look backwards and write a document on the history of the
> database...many of us already knew that.

Similarly, it is simply not true that RIPE 767 only looks backwards. We 
have specific recommendations based on this which were outlined at RIPE 83.

It *IS* true that we did not recommend designing a complete new database 
model and writing software to implement it.

Designing new models or building a new implementation are not contrary 
to the requirements as documented by the task force, but they are not 
necessary for them either.

> So finally the bottom line:
> It really is time to start this conversation about the future of the
> RIPE Database and the public registry.

If you actually want something different, then I think you have at least 
two ways forward:

1. Propose specific changes to the current RIPE Database and iterate 
towards perfection.

2. Propose a new model, and outline a way to migrate from the current 
system towards that.

Unfortunately many of the items listed in your e-mail are not 
actionable, so not appropriate for path #1. For example:

 > -the current java based software was first written about 12 years ago

Some of the items listed in your e-mail are too broad and unspecified, 
so also not appropriate for path #1. For example:

 > -it has privacy issues

This might be true, although in several cases you seem to disagree with 
the lawyers who have given advice about privacy issues in the database, 
and so your specific proposals are unnecessary according to experts. I 
am sure the community would welcome privacy improvements for any actual 
problems though.

Luckily there *ARE* things on the list that could be converted to 
specific proposals in line with path #1:

 > -there is no simple way for data users to even query their own data, 
never mind manage it

I don't necessarily agree, since you can do an inverse query to find all 
of the objects that you maintain, but I guess you have something else in 
mind. Great! Propose it. A short document focused on this one specific 
issue would be much easier for people to get their heads around and 
could result in genuine improvement.

You seem to be more interested in path #2, but also unwilling to start 
the work on your own. I suppose that makes sense, since it is a lot of 
work that probably requires a broader skill-set than any one person has. 
But since nobody else seems to think it worth their personal investment 
of time, then I think that is your best bet. If you come up with some 
solid principles and approaches, that may attract more interest than 
repeatedly scolding your fellow community members.

Good luck!

Cheers,

--
Shane
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0x3732979CF967B306.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 11519 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20240321/5e8a77b2/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20240321/5e8a77b2/attachment.sig>