[db-wg] Re: db-wg digest, Vol 1 #520 - 1 msg

Hi Joao
   
  I agree. So lets focus first on a consensus for stage 1. Then we can start work on that while we continue discussions on the other stages and the impacts they will have on work flow of LIRs.

regards
  Denis
  RIPE NCC


     
  Cc: Database WG ,
ncc-services-wg 
From: Joao Damas 
Subject: Re: [db-wg] Proposal - Maintaining person, role and domain objects
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:00:20 +0200
To: Denis Walker 

Stage 1 makes a lot of sense to me as it has little consequences to 
older data while it makes sure new information going into the DB has 
a better chance of being kept as originally posted by the object 
creator.
The other stages do need a bit more discussion as they may in fact 
affect a lot of legacy data and have the potential to add a burden to 
LIR operations. I am in favour of those extra steps, just think that 
there is a need to repeat the warnings and announcements before and 
insist on people making an impact analysis on their operations.
   
   
  Joao Damas

On 21 Jun 2007, at 14:41, Denis Walker wrote:

> [Apologies for duplicate mails]
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> As a result of discussions during the Database Working Group 
> session at
> RIPE 54, the RIPE NCC has nine proposals and implementation plans to
> present to the community. Although most of them are now in the final
> stages of preparation, we will send them out one at a time over the 
> next
> few weeks for consideration by the community.
>
> The first one concerns maintaining all objects in the RIPE 
> Database, which
> followed from a recommendation from the Data Protection Task Force 
> (DP TF)
> (see below). We have already had some preliminary discussions about 
> this
> with the DP TF. They provided the RIPE NCC with some very useful 
> feedback,
> which is incorporated in this proposal.
>
> Regards
> Denis Walker
> RIPE NCC
>
>
>
> Maintaining person, role and domain objects
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
> Implementation
> As with the CRYPT-PW deprecation this will have a staged rollout.
>
> Stage 1
>
> * No new person, role or domain objects can be created without a
> "mnt-by:" attribute.
> * Any un-maintained person, role or domain object cannot be modified
> without adding a "mnt-by:" attribute.
> * Any update where objects reference an un-maintained person object,
> either directly or through a mntner with such references, will
> generate a warning message in the acknowledgement.
>
> In this stage the acknowledgement message may include these warnings:
>
> ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE]
> ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] in
> mntner [AARDVARK-MNT]
>
> Stage 2
>
> * Any update where objects reference an un-maintained person object,
> either directly or through a mntner with such references, will
> generate a warning message in the acknowledgement.
> * Any NEW reference to an un-maintained person object or to a mntner
> which has such references will generate an error message in the
> acknowledgement and the update will fail.
>
> In this stage the acknowledgement message may include these warnings
> and errors:
>
> ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE]
> ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] in
> mntner [AARDVARK-MNT]
> ***ERROR: New reference to un-maintained person object [DW-RIPE]
> ***ERROR: New reference to un-maintained person object [DW-RIPE] in
> mntner [AARDVARK-MNT]
>
> Stage 3
>
> * Any update where objects reference an un-maintained person object,
> either directly or through a mntner with such references, will
> generate an error message in the acknowledgement and the update
> will fail.
>
> In this stage the acknowledgement message may include these errors:
>
> ***ERROR: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE]
> ***ERROR: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] in mntner
> [AARDVARK-MNT]
>
>
> Statistics
> ----------
> While not a very statistically valid survey, we looked at a few days
> just after the RIPE meeting to see how many new person objects were
> created with and without mntner objects. We also queried the new
> objects some time after creation to allow for a "mnt-by:" to be added
> later. We also noted how many unique person objects were referenced in
> any objects in update messages with and without mntner objects. AUTO-
> references were ignored in both creations and updates, and multiple
> instances of the same person object being referenced many times were
> counted as one.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> | Date |Created |Created |Referenced |Referenced |
> | |with |without |with |without |
> |--------------------------------------------------------|
> | 20070515 | 156 | 89 | 925 | 726 |
> | 20070516 | 111 | 67 | 1022 | 486 |
> | 20070517 | 85 | 48 | 476 | 185 |
> | 20070518 | 82 | 18 | 679 | 445 |
> --------------------------------------------------------
>




End of db-wg Digest



 		
---------------------------------
 New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20070626/91f73f9c/attachment.html>