[db-wg] Proposed change 2003.3: "reclaim:"-like functionality

Colleagues,

This is one of a number of proposed changes to the way the RIPE
Database works.  These are changes that are intended to make the
database work more consistently, as well as provide an increased level
of security and control to users.

Please have a look, and discuss it here.


[2003.3] Implementation of "reclaim:"-like functionality
--------------------------------------------------------

Proposal:

Any maintainer that would have been able to authorise the creation of
an object can authorise the deletion of the same object.

If creation of an object requires authorisation from multiple
maintainers (e.g. route objects that require authorisation from an
aut-num and an inetnum), then any of those maintainers may authorise
the deletion.

Motivation:

The maintainer of an object is responsible for insuring that the data
in the object is accurate.  For hierarchical objects the maintainer
can delegate responsibility for a subset.  However, under the current
implementation, there is no way for the maintainer to delete objects
created and delegated to maintainers who should not or will not have
access to the resources represented by these objects any more.

For example, if the holder of portable address space changes ISP, then
the address space will be advertised from a different AS.  This means
that the old route object is invalid and should be deleted.  However,
if the old ISP maintains the object, then the holder of the space has
no way to delete the old object.  This old route object will prevent
the creation of a new route object that represents the new
arrangement.

The "reclaim:" attribute defined in RPSS allows for very similar
functionality, but it may not be added to space that already has
objects.  This means that any existing more-specific objects cannot be
deleted by the maintainers of the less-specific objects.  For the case
of old objects - the ones most likely to need such deletion - this
means that the "reclaim:" attribute does not help.

The "reclaim:" attribute also has a different syntax, depending on the
specific object type that it is present in.  This complicates parsing
of objects.

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC