Skip to main content

RIPE Database Working Group Minutes RIPE 85

Thursday, 27 October 14:00 - 15:30 (UTC+2)
WG Co-Chairs: Denis Walker, William Sylvester
Scribe: Theodoros Polychniatis
Status: Final

A and B) Introduction and NWI Update

William Sylvester, Co-Chair, RIPE Database Working Group 

The presentations can be found at:

Denis Walker could not attend so William Sylvester chaired the meeting.

William opened the meeting and asked for volunteers for chairs but there were no offers from attendees. He started the session mentioning the low activity on the mailing list, the number of NWIs without resolution, their status and suggested a quick process to resolve them. This was also reflected by the low number of attendees in the room.

B) Operational Update

Edward Shryane, RIPE NCC

The presentation can be found at:

Ed Shryane proceeded with the operational update for the RIPE Database. He talked about the changes in the new Whois release, that Whois Tags are removed and also that the team is working on the open sourcing of the web application. He also talked about the changes related to the Default Mntner, RDAP, and the migration of the whois documentation. He continued his presentation with an update on the NWIs, most importantly on the progress in the specification of NWI-12 (NRTMv4) and the impact analysis on NWI-4 “Role of status: field in multivalued status context”. He said that the current work will be shared with the Working Group.

D) Geofeed Discussion

William Sylvester, Co-Chair, RIPE Database Working Group 

The presentation can be found at:

William summarised the discussion on the mailing list on geolocation and geofeed. It seemed that there was a consensus on the general purpose of the geolocation but the wording needed to be fine-tuned and a proposal made.

E) Proposal 2022-01

William Sylvester, Co-Chair, RIPE Database Working Group 

The presentation can be found at:

The ‘Personal Data in the RIPE Database’ proposal was presented by William. He covered the scope of the policy, discussions, and conclusions. Most attendees were aligned that the proposal was too big and needed to be dropped and split into smaller proposals because the intent was good. Attendees also thanked Denis for his contribution to the topic. 


The session can be viewed at:

There was some discussion during the AOB about the low participation and whether other platforms would be more suitable.