[ripe-db-requirements-tf] Notes from 28 June 2021 Meeting

Dear all,

Here's the meeting notes from our last call.

Cheers,
Boris


*RIPE Requirements Database Task Force Meeting Notes*
28 June 2021 Meeting

Attendees: Boris Duval, Shane Kerr, Peter Koch, Bijal Sanghani, Ed Shryane, Maria Stafyla

1.  Draft Document
A) Historical Data
Shane shared with the task force the feedback he received from Daniel Karrenberg and Erik Bais regarding their historical data usage. Erik Bais mentioned that their RIPE WhoWas service was using RIPE Database snapshots to build their own data sets and that they were not using historical data. However, Shane said that they were still missing the chain of ownership of objects as the object history is removed if it’s deleted and re-added.

Daniel gave different use cases for operational and research purposes but mentioned that regarding research it could not be clearly defined as it depended on the research itself.

The task force discussed restricting the usage of historical data to what’s necessary for the main operational use cases and give access to researchers to a wider set of data on a case-by-case basis. Shane mentioned that SIDN has a similar approach and is using a defined set of criteria to grant access to their historical data. The task force said that if they were to recommend this approach, the criteria should be discussed and defined by the community. The task force needed more time to think about this recommendation.


B) Routing Relationship Information
The task force agreed to remove this requirement as there was not a strong enough rationale to keep it in the document. The task force might revisit this requirement in its final draft.


C) IPv4 PA Assignments
The task force agreed that this recommendation was about giving the choice to resource holders to document IPv4 PA assignments but not about deleting all IPv4 PA assignments from the database. The task force will clarify this point in the document to avoid misinterpretations.


D) IPAM
Peter mentioned that this recommendation was linked to the IPv4 PA assignments recommendation. Boris proposed to change the document order, so that they are both following each other. Peter also mentioned that this specific usage of the database as an IPAM solution should be clearer to avoid confusion. James proposed to reword the recommendation with the following text:
“The task force recommends to limit and discourage the use of the RIPE Database as an enterprise IPAM solution.”


E) RPKI Database
Maria pointed out that the current recommendation to ask the community if RPKI should be considered as a community resource or as a RIPE NCC service was unclear. The task force agreed to clarify this recommendation by adding more context.



 2) Publication of the intermediate draft
The task force agreed to review the document by Wednesday, 30 June and publish the draft on Thursday, 1 July. Bijal mentioned that she will have a call with the RIPE Chair, Mirjam Kühne, on Thursday to align on next steps before publishing the draft.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-db-requirements-tf/attachments/20210702/783da27c/attachment.sig>