AW: [db-wg] Call for agenda items, DB-WG Meeting during RIPE53, Amsterdam
- Previous message (by thread): AW: [db-wg] Call for agenda items, DB-WG Meeting during RIPE53, Amsterdam
- Next message (by thread): AW: [db-wg] Call for agenda items, DB-WG Meeting during RIPE53, Amsterdam
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Thu Sep 14 21:33:06 CEST 2006
Winfried Haug wrote: > Hello, Good evening, > we want you again to discuss the problem with the route-objects which > need approval from the first owner of a route-object rather than > from the owner of the inet object itself. fair enough. > As you didnt repsond to personal emails concerning this topic we want > you to address this again. As the Chair of a Working Group does not take any decisions, there is no point in opening private discussions. A WG Chair's task is nothing more and nothing less than managing (rather: trying to manage - we all are human) the discussion process. The decisions are taken after a thorough discussion on the mailing list and/or during the face-to-face meetings by consensus - or not - or by way of the more formal PDP (Policy Development Process) for the potentially more contentious or fundamental issues. > There are many good reasons, that a owner > of the ip block should have the possibility to remove unwanted route > objects or at least grant new routes objects to be added to the ripe > database. > > I see NO reason why a a maintainer of the first route object should > have more power than the real owner of the ip space. > > The might be situations where you need 2 route objects (changing > upstream). If the owner of the first route object doensnt respond or > is unwilling to help the ip-owner and/or the new isp you are lost. > > We dont think that sending a fax to ripe will be a good solution for > this design error in the ripe database. Do you intend to present your issue during the next DB-WG Meeting? If yes, how many time should I allocate to this topic on the draft agenda? Who would be the presenter? In case you think a more formal process is appropriate then this is the reference for more information: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/index.html In any case, I think the Routing-WG and/or the Address Policy WG would be the first choice for you to start this particular dicussion - because the DB-WG is "just" a group to provide the tools and mechanisms, and not the policies and/or the semantics, or the protection guidelines, for the registry data. In any case, I guess there will be some RFC/s that need/s changing if and when we can reach consensus in the community along the lines of your thoughts. > Winfried Haug > > Headlight Housing Factory | Rechenzentrum: > Azenbergstrasse 35 | Neue Bruecke 8 > D-70174 Stuttgart | D-70173 Stuttgart > Fon: +49 711 2840 0 | e-mail: wh at headlight.de > Fax: +49 711 2840 999 | http://www.headlight.de With the best regards, looking foreward to your active contribution, WW144 _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Previous message (by thread): AW: [db-wg] Call for agenda items, DB-WG Meeting during RIPE53, Amsterdam
- Next message (by thread): AW: [db-wg] Call for agenda items, DB-WG Meeting during RIPE53, Amsterdam
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]