From nigel at titley.com Mon Sep 1 16:01:01 2014 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:01:01 +0100 Subject: [db-wg] last-modified:, a succesor to changed: In-Reply-To: <20140527133706.GA76536@Eleanor.local> References: <20140415133136.GB8984@Eleanor.local> <20140527133706.GA76536@Eleanor.local> Message-ID: <54047C1D.502@titley.com> On 27/05/14 14:37, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear Working Group, > > This proposal has lingered around on the mailinglist for some time now, > and discussion seems to be finished. I'd like to offer this summary: > > Add two and remove one attributes to all objects with source: RIPE. > > * Addition of a "last-modified" attribute, example: > last-modified: 2014-04-15T13:15:30Z > * Addition of a "created" attribute, example: > created: 2014-04-15T13:15:30Z > * Deprecation of the "changed:" attribute (in phases!). > > Object updates that include a "changed:" line should receive a soft > warning and not a blocking error, this way existing scripts need not be > modified. In some future release 'changed:' lines will no longer be > published by the Whois Server, completing the deprecation. > > The 'last-modified:' and 'created:' attributes will be automatically > generated by the RIPE Whois Software. When clients include them in > updates the Whois Server will ignore them. > > Chairs, can we move this forward? > > Checking back on the discussion I think that consensus has been reached on this proposal. RIPE NCC can you proceed with it please? Nigel From g.c.moreiramoura at tudelft.nl Thu Sep 4 14:35:54 2014 From: g.c.moreiramoura at tudelft.nl (Giovane C. M. Moura) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:35:54 +0200 Subject: [db-wg] Request for large number of request Message-ID: <54085CAA.4040306@tudelft.nl> Dear Sir/Madam, I found on [1] that users can request permissions to have a large number of requests on the whois service. I would like to request permission for that -- we're talking about 500K requests max. I can provide more details and why this is important to be used in our research. Thanks and best, /giovane [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2005-June/003069.html -- Giovane C. M. Moura, PhD Postdoctoral Researcher Economics of Cybersecurity Group Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management Delft University of Technology http://homepage.tudelft.nl/6a4w6/ From training at ripe.net Thu Sep 11 11:11:03 2014 From: training at ripe.net (Training Services) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:11:03 +0200 Subject: [db-wg] [training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates Message-ID: <54116727.1090906@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live and take only one hour. You can interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email . We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services From tim at ripe.net Thu Sep 11 17:20:07 2014 From: tim at ripe.net (Tim Bruijnzeels) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:20:07 +0200 Subject: [db-wg] Replacing "changed" with "last-modified" implementation plan In-Reply-To: <54047C1D.502@titley.com> References: <20140415133136.GB8984@Eleanor.local> <20140527133706.GA76536@Eleanor.local> <54047C1D.502@titley.com> Message-ID: Dear working group, Following the consensus call we looked into the proposal to replace ?changed? with ?created? and ?last-modified?. Part of this proposal involves the removal of an attribute that is currently mandatory, and this has a potential big impact on both consumers (querying for objects) and producers (creating/updating objects) of the RIPE DB. To make sure that everything goes as smoothly as possible we therefore propose a multi phase approach allowing for ample testing and communication, and migration from using the current attribute to the new ones. Before starting implementation we would like to discuss this proposal with the WG, both on list and in person at RIPE 69. The dates mentioned below should be regarded as provisional in that context. Once we have the okay from the working group to proceed we will communicate a finalised implementation plan. Also, we will communicate about each phase separately in future. Phase 1 and 2 to the mailing list, phase 3 can be discussed on the mailing list, and in person at RIPE 70. Phase 1: Introduce new attributes: ?created? and ?last-modified? ======================================================================== Shortly after RIPE 69 26 Nov 2014: RC 10 Dec 2014: Production (2 weeks of RC) - ?last-modified? & ?created? are added to output (adding new attributes is RFC compliant, parsers should ignore it if they don't understand) - ?changed? is accepted as-is today Users of the RIPE DB that are using the ?changed? attribute should migrate their tools to rely on ?created? and ?last-modified? instead during this phase. Phase 2: ?changed? becomes optional ======================================================================== Two months after RIPE 69 21 Jan 2015: RC 4 Mar 2015: Production (6 weeks of RC) - When an object is submitted with ?changed" attributes a WARNING is generated, but the update is accepted - When an object is submitted _without_ the ?changed? attribute it is accepted - The ?changed? attribute is marked as 'optional' in the RPSL schema Users of the RIPE DB that are still using the ?changed? attribute will start to see objects without any ?changed? attributes. They are once more encouraged to migrate to using ?created? and ?last-modified? instead. Users are encouraged to stop including ?changed? attributes when they submit objects. Phase 3: ?changed? is completely deprecated ======================================================================== Two months after RIPE 70 27 May 2015: RC 8 Jul 2015: Production (6 weeks of RC) - The ?changed? attribute will be removed from all outputs: whois, restful, NRTM, ftpdump - When an object is submitted with ?changed" attributes a ERROR is generated, and the update is rejected - The ?changed? attribute is removed from the RPSL schema As the final step of deprecating the ?changed? attribute all users are forced to stop using it. This means that users who are still submitting ?changed? attributes, will start seeing their updates rejected at this point (after having received warnings for 4 months). This step is necessary as the WG agreed that the ?changed? attribute is no longer needed. Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels Assistent Manager Software Engineering RIPE NCC From job at instituut.net Fri Sep 12 11:17:25 2014 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:17:25 +0200 Subject: [db-wg] Replacing "changed" with "last-modified" implementation plan In-Reply-To: References: <20140415133136.GB8984@Eleanor.local> <20140527133706.GA76536@Eleanor.local> <54047C1D.502@titley.com> Message-ID: <20140912091725.GZ53723@Vurt.local> Hi all, On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:20:07PM +0200, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > Following the consensus call we looked into the proposal to replace > ?changed? with ?created? and ?last-modified?. > > Part of this proposal involves the removal of an attribute that is > currently mandatory, and this has a potential big impact on both > consumers (querying for objects) and producers (creating/updating > objects) of the RIPE DB. To make sure that everything goes as smoothly > as possible we therefore propose a multi phase approach allowing for > ample testing and communication, and migration from using the current > attribute to the new ones. > > Phase 1: Introduce new attributes: ?created? and ?last-modified? > Phase 2: ?changed? becomes optional > Phase 3: ?changed? is completely deprecated Disclosure: I sat down with Tim to create this implementation timeline. The main advantages of the proposed timeline are: - Two RIPE meetings to warn/inform people - Consumer scripts might break after 3 months the announcements (because the attribute was mandatory) - Concurrent existence of "last-modified" and "changed" attributes - Publish scripts might break ~ 8 months after the first announcements - In total there will be 5 months of warning-output in email/api/webupdates before attribute is entirely deprecated I think this is a reasonable, careful, strategy. We can re-use this schedule when we deprecate more attributes in the future. Kind regards, Job From Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl Fri Sep 12 11:36:43 2014 From: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl (Piotr Strzyzewski) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:36:43 +0200 Subject: [db-wg] Replacing "changed" with "last-modified" implementation plan In-Reply-To: References: <20140415133136.GB8984@Eleanor.local> <20140527133706.GA76536@Eleanor.local> <54047C1D.502@titley.com> Message-ID: <20140912093643.GH8166@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:20:07PM +0200, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > Following the consensus call we looked into the proposal to replace ?changed? with ?created? and ?last-modified?. [cut] I like this plan/proposal/schedule. It is extremely careful, which is good in this situation. One question: are you going to introduce --list-versions and --show-version for those object which doesn't support them now. This could lead to some problems (data protection, data retention). However this could be also more consistent with the removal of the changed lines. Would you elaborate on that? Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzy?ewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl From tim at ripe.net Tue Sep 16 14:42:10 2014 From: tim at ripe.net (Tim Bruijnzeels) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:42:10 +0200 Subject: [db-wg] Replacing "changed" with "last-modified" implementation plan In-Reply-To: <20140912093643.GH8166@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> References: <20140415133136.GB8984@Eleanor.local> <20140527133706.GA76536@Eleanor.local> <54047C1D.502@titley.com> <20140912093643.GH8166@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> Message-ID: <53C60241-E33F-4387-883E-821AF4811B48@ripe.net> Hi Piotr, Thank you for your feedback. On 12 Sep 2014, at 11:36, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:20:07PM +0200, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: >> Following the consensus call we looked into the proposal to replace ?changed? with ?created? and ?last-modified?. > > [cut] > > I like this plan/proposal/schedule. It is extremely careful, which is > good in this situation. > One question: are you going to introduce --list-versions and > --show-version for those object which doesn't support them now. This > could lead to some problems (data protection, data retention). > However this could be also more consistent with the removal of the changed > lines. Would you elaborate on that? In this case the actual changes should not be public, for the reasons you mention. However, we can look into providing more detailed history to authorised maintainers of such objects. Would this add value for you? The idea would be that as an ?owner? you have full insight into the history, and you can use remarks for anything you would wish to share with the public. Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels Assistent Manager Software Engineering RIPE NCC From nigel at titley.com Tue Sep 16 14:57:26 2014 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:57:26 +0100 Subject: [db-wg] Proposal to remove "referral-by" attribute in "mntner" object or make it optional In-Reply-To: <20140415113357.GA8984@Eleanor.local> References: <22EB883B374B66489FFF2022AF1EF8581A2ABCC237@mail01-tln-ee.office.linxtelecom.com> <20140415113357.GA8984@Eleanor.local> Message-ID: <541833B6.40007@titley.com> On 15/04/14 12:33, Job Snijders wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:19:14PM +0200, Martin T?nusoo wrote: > > > >> Is the "referral-by" attribute obsolete? >> If not, I propose to remove the "referral-by" attribute in "mntner" >> object or at least make it optional. > A few weeks have passed and no new comments have been added to the > thread. > > Can the WG chairs declare consensus has been reached and rubber stamp > the removal of the "referral-by" attribute in mnter objects? > > Agreed, consensus has been reached. Can RIPE NCC action this please? Nigel From Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl Tue Sep 16 14:59:52 2014 From: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl (Piotr Strzyzewski) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:59:52 +0200 Subject: [db-wg] Replacing "changed" with "last-modified" implementation plan In-Reply-To: <53C60241-E33F-4387-883E-821AF4811B48@ripe.net> References: <20140415133136.GB8984@Eleanor.local> <20140527133706.GA76536@Eleanor.local> <54047C1D.502@titley.com> <20140912093643.GH8166@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> <53C60241-E33F-4387-883E-821AF4811B48@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20140916125952.GD21754@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 02:42:10PM +0200, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: Hi Tim > On 12 Sep 2014, at 11:36, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:20:07PM +0200, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > >> Following the consensus call we looked into the proposal to replace ?changed? with ?created? and ?last-modified?. > > > > [cut] > > > > I like this plan/proposal/schedule. It is extremely careful, which is > > good in this situation. > > One question: are you going to introduce --list-versions and > > --show-version for those object which doesn't support them now. This > > could lead to some problems (data protection, data retention). > > However this could be also more consistent with the removal of the changed > > lines. Would you elaborate on that? > > In this case the actual changes should not be public, for the reasons > you mention. > > However, we can look into providing more detailed history to > authorised maintainers of such objects. Would this add value for you? > The idea would be that as an ?owner? you have full insight into the > history, and you can use remarks for anything you would wish to share > with the public. I can live with the remarks lines. :) Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzy?ewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl