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

Hi,

apologies for the top posting.

I think Job’s proposal is a good one. I support it.

Whether we delete the object in RIPE-NONAUTH IRR once a ROA is created or whether we delete all of them all together in one cleanup, I think we should get rid of this old stale data.

I am not sure a grace period makes sense if the proposal moves forward as is. A grace period would make sense if this proposal is updated so that RIPE NCC is tasked to do a one-time cleaning of all the RIPE-NONAUTH route objects.

my 2 cents,
elvis

Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.

> On Oct 16, 2018, at 14:18, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
> 
> * Job Snijders
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, any e-mail address associated with the object to be deleted
> (notify:, mnt-by:, etc).
> 
> The recipient will in some cases be «the adversary», true, but I don't
> see the a problem with that since he will be powerless to stop the
> impending deletion anyway.
> 
> Also, it's also acceptable if the notifications don't reach anyone at
> all. At least the attempt was made, we can't do much more than that.
> 
> That said, this grace period is not a deal-breaker for me. I'm fine
> with the proposal either way, really.
> 
> Tore
>