Authorisation and Notification of Changes

Folks,

here is my long promised writeup on the "notify" and
"maintainer" attributes. I hope it is clear enough.
It will be discussed at the next RIPE meeting. Hopefully
no substantive changes will be necessary. Suggestions
on how to improve clarity are always welcome of course.

Daniel



      Authorisation and Notification of Changes in the
                       RIPE Database



                     Daniel Karrenberg
                          RIPE NCC



                          ABSTRACT

          Two new attributes for  all  objects  in  the
     RIPE database are proposed in order to implement a
     generalised method for authorising changes and  to
     notify interested parties of any changes made to a
     specific object.  In  addition  the  authorisation
     method  provides  a convenient way for distributed
     maintenance of the database.




The Notify Attribute

Each RIPE database object will have  an  optional  attribute
called  notify.   The  value  of the notify attribute is one
valid RFC822 e-mail address.  There can be  multiple  notify
attributes.

Whenever the object concerned is changed in the  database  a
notification  message  will be sent to each e-mail addresses
appearing in a notify attribute.

This makes it straightforward to keep track  of  changes  to
specific  objects  and prevent changes from going unnoticed.
Multiple notify attributes make  it  possible  to  notify  a
number  of  interested parties.  This could be used to alert
all contact persons for an object or the local contact  per-
sons  as well as the relevant service provider.  Although it
may be tempting to put many notify  attributes  on  database
objects   in   order   to   notify  everyone  even  remotely
interested,  this  is  not  recommended.   A  very  few  key
addresses  should be sufficient.  Prior to entering any mail
address here, the explicit or implicit consent of the person
responsible   for   that  particular  mailbox  needs  to  be
obtained.
                           - 2 -


The Maintainer Attribute

Each RIPE database object will have  an  optional  attribute
called maintainer.  The value of the maintainer attribute is
a registered maintainer name.  There can only be  one  main-
tainer attribute per object.


Whenever a change to the object concerned is attempted in  a
copy of the database the maintainer attribute of the current
database object is examined.

If there is no maintainer attribute or the  maintainer  name
is  authorised  to  make changes in the copy of the database
the update proceeds causing the necessary  notifications  as
per the notify attribute.

If the maintainer name has no authorisation  to  change  the
local  copy of the database, the update request is forwarded
to the maintainer for processing.  No notifications are per-
formed in this case.

The following data needs to be maintained locally about each
maintainer:


Maintainer name

Authority         none
                  change whole database
                  change only own objects

Forwarding Info   mail/RFC822-address
                  other/address

Authorisation     none
                  mail/RFC-822-address
                  other/key




Application 1: Regional Registries

In order to align the InterNIC and  RIPE  databases  it  has
been  agreed  that  European  objects  will be maintained in
Europe. The RIPE NCC will provide the data for these objects
to  the  InterNIC  for  inclusion  in their database without
further processing.  The RIPE NCC will refer all updates for
non-European  objects to the InternNIC and the InterNIC will
refer all updates for European objects to the RIPE  NCC  for
processing.

This can be  achieved  by  creating  two  maintainer  names:
                           - 3 -


INTERNIC  and RIPE-NCC and tagging all European objects with
RIPE-NCC and vice versa. The tags can be phased  in  slowly,
avoiding  a flag day with the associated massive consistency
problems. Over time all objects in the RIPE  database  would
be thus tagged.

Updates from third parties for objects with  the  maintainer
attribute  added can now be referred correctly. Updates from
the other registry for objects it maintains can be  accepted
without further checking.


Example 2: Local Registries

Some European local registries keep their own copies of  the
database  containing  the  objects  within their area.  This
leads to consistency problems as updates can be sent both to
the  RIPE NCC and to the local registry.  Referrals are per-
formed by ad hoc methods.  Frequently only one of the  data-
bases is updated and alignment needs to be done manually.

By registering maintainer names for the local registries and
tagging  the  appropriate  objects this can be automated and
made more reliable.  The NCC would forward  update  requests
for  locally maintained objects to the local registry unless
they come from that local registry itself.



Example 3: Guarded Objects

Some objects  such  as  the  autonomous-system  object  (see
ripe-81)  need to be protected against changes by anyone but
a designated guardian since changes to these objects have  a
direct operational impact.

By registering appropriate maintainer names for the  guardi-
ans and tagging the objects to be protected this functional-
ity can be provided in a canonical way.  Any change by third
parties  to  such  an  object will not only be prevented but
cause automatic notification of  the  guardian  through  the
forwarding mechanism.