[routing-wg] 2018-06 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC IRR Database Non-Authoritative Route Object Clean-up)

Hi Job, Tore

I understand but there were legitimate users, of the RIPE-NONAUTH
objects (those in reciept of Legacy address space)
and it would serve as full and final reminder to those who legitimately used
the legacy RIPE-NONAUTH objects, to get the resource holders
to update / create new route objects that are authenticated and in
line with best
current practice.
I think the risk of emailing an adversary is minimal when they cannot do much
about the pending object deletion.
Thanks

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 13:07, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Tom, Tore,
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:04 PM Tom Smyth <tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu> wrote:
> > Im happy with the proposal,
> > again I think the prior notification + graceperiod suggestion makes sense
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 12:57, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
> > >
> > > * Marco Schmidt
> > >
> > > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-06, "RIPE NCC IRR Database Non-Authoritative Route Object Clean-up", is now available for discussion.
> > > >
> > > > The goal of the proposal is to delete an non-authoritative object stored in the RIPE IRR, if it conflicts with an RPKI ROA.
> > >
> > > I've read the policy proposal and I think it makes sense.
> > >
> > > I see some respondents in db-wg asking for a notification of an upcoming
> > > deletion followed by a grace period. That's a reasonable ask, considering
> > > that a deletion of a RIPE-NONAUTH object is irreversible.
> > >
> > > In any case, +1.
>
> I am not sure that RIPE NCC can reliably figure out who to email - do
> you email the adversary?
>
> It may be tricky to programmatically find the appropriate contacts to
> send the notification. The route/route6 object's "notify:" attribute
> (when present) is perhaps not entirely suitable in this context -
> since that mail address may not point to the resource holder but
> rather to a previous owner, an adversary or simply the wrong people.
>
> If it is acceptable to the community that a percentage of
> notifications won't arrive at all, or go to the entirely wrong people
> - I'm willing to entertain the possibility of amending the proposal to
> add one-off notifications when an object is deleted. But I do think
> it'll lead to more confusion, rather than be useful.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job



-- 
Kindest regards,
Tom Smyth

Mobile: +353 87 6193172
The information contained in this E-mail is intended only for the
confidential use of the named recipient. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering it to the recipient, you are hereby notified that you have
received this communication in error and that any review,
dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this in error, please notify the sender
immediately by telephone at the number above and erase the message
You are requested to carry out your own virus check before
opening any attachment.