[routing-wg] 2018-06 Discussion Phase (RIPE NCC IRR Database Non-Authoritative Route Object Clean-up)

Hi,

I think it would be good to look for contact details in the authoritative whois for the resources involved. E.g. RDAP provides a generic way to do this. In particular maliciously created objects may have contact details in them for the wrong people if only the RIPE (non-authoritative) object is looked at, and these contacts may have a vested interest in keeping their object.

I understand that this could complicate processing of potential concerns in cases where disagreements may come up, but to me it seems more important that the real current holders of the resources should have the bigger say in this.

Tim

> On 4 Jun 2019, at 15:21, Alexander Azimov <a.e.azimov at gmail.com <mailto:a.e.azimov at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> I was opposing the first version of this proposal, where conflicting objects were silently and instantly removed.
> The new version seems to resolve these concerns - and 7-day notification should be fine.
> 
> But I'm not sure if all objects have optional 'notify' field (and a brief check showed that there are some without this field, I don't have exact numbers at the moment). If there is the technical opportunity I would suggest to also use notify field (and may be other contacts) from the related maintainer object.
> 
> 
> пт, 31 мая 2019 г. в 14:11, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no <mailto:tore at fud.no>>:
> * Marco Schmidt
> 
> > A new version of 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.
> 
> Eminently sensible. Supported.
> 
> Tore
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Alexander Azimov

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/attachments/20190605/40d6023c/attachment.html>