[db-wg] Proposal to remove "referral-by" attribute in "mntner" object or make it optional

Hi Martin

Historically, technical changes like this to the RIPE Database, that are 
not considered to affect any existing policy or require a new policy (at 
the discretion of the WG chairs), have been discussed on the DB WG 
mailing list or at the DB session at a RIPE Meeting. If the DB WG chairs 
agree that a consensus is reached by the community as a result of these 
discussions the WG chairs can approve the RIPE NCC taking the action.

Regards
Denis Walker
Business Analyst
RIPE NCC Database Team

On 17/03/2014 12:37, Martin Tõnusoo wrote:
> Job and Denis,
>
>
> Thank you very much for your comments and explanations! Just for sake of interest, what does the "stamp of approval" mean in context of RIPE database, i.e. who(and how) needs to approve such proposals?
>
>
>
> WBR,
> Martin Tonusoo
> --------------------------
>        LINXTELECOM
>   www.linxtelecom.com
> --------------------------
> NOC 24/7: +372 622 3300
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Denis Walker [denis at ripe.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 9:10 PM
> To: Job Snijders; Martin Tõnusoo
> Cc: db-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Proposal to remove "referral-by" attribute in "mntner" object or make it optional
>
> Dear Job and Martin
>
> I am sure this point was also raised by Engin at a RIPE Meeting. But
> there was no reaction either for or against. The RIPE NCC has proposed a
> number of such cleanups in the RIPE Database syntax, business rules and
> data over the years. But unless we get a stamp of approval we cannot
> move forward with them.
>
> A quick history of the "referral-by:". When version 3 of the RIPE
> Database software was released in 2001 it was not possible for users to
> create their own MNTNER objects. You had to contact ripe-dbm and ask for
> one and justify why you needed 'another' MNTNER object. So only the RIPE
> NCC created MNTNER objects. That is why the documentation said the value
> of "referral-by:" had to be set to 'ripe-dbm-mnt' and could not be
> changed. In general RFC2725 defined it as a chain of trust where any
> existing MNTNER could create another one and be referred from it.
>
> At some point the community decided asking ripe-dbm to create new MNTNER
> objects was over bureaucratic and not necessary. So it was opened up to
> allow anyone to create a MNTNER object, without any verification,
> validation or accountability. This is the situation we have now where a
> MNTNER is an anonymous box holding credentials of unknown and
> un-identifiable people. These are the people who maintain data in the
> RIPE Database. There was a cost to removing the bureaucracy.
>
> As Engin pointed out, there was never any functionality implemented
> based on the "referral-by:" attribute. When we allowed anyone to create
> their own MNTNER we dropped the restriction on the value and changes to
> the value. The recommendation was to make it self-referencing. This was
> the easiest way to explain to new users what to put for the value. But
> it still confuses users today and if the community agrees it would be a
> good move to deprecate it, this would help a lot of people to understand
> the database.
>
> When we set up AFRINIC's database in 2005, we dropped the "referral-by:"
> in their implementation of the whois software.
>
> As there is no usage or dependency on this attribute at all, we can
> deprecate it from the syntax and mass update all MNTNER objects to
> remove it very easily.
>
> If you wish to consider updating RFC2725 and RFC2622 (and later
> versions) bear in mind this is not the only deviation from the RFCs in
> the RIPE Database implementation. In fact from the start in 2001, the
> RIPE Database software was never strictly compliant with the RFCs. We
> used to say it conformed to RIPE RPSL, which was derived from the RFCs.
> To bring the RFCs into line with practical reality would be quite a
> task. Especially as the RIPE Database is a routing, reverse delegation
> and Internet number registry. 'RPSL' was adapted to make it work for all
> elements of the database.
>
> I hope this explains where we are with "referral-by:". If you wish to
> proceed with changing this, you may wish to take another look at some of
> the other changes we suggested over the years that also never achieved
> any consensus. Some of those suggestions are still applicable now and
> would help to simplify aspects of the database and it's usage.
>
> Regards
> Denis Walker
> Business Analyst
> RIPE NCC Database Team
>
> On 14/03/2014 18:14, Job Snijders wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:19:14PM +0200, Martin Tõnusoo wrote:
>>
>>> "referral-by" attribute(defined in RFC2725) is mandatory in "mntner"
>>> object:
>>>
>>> [martint@ ~/ripe-db]$ whois -BHrh whois.ripe.net -t mntner | grep
>>> referral-by referral-by:    [mandatory]  [single]     [ ] [martint@
>>> ~/ripe-db]$
>>>
>>> I checked the db-wg mailing-list archive since January 2000 and only
>>> discussion I found regarding this attribute was from Engin
>>> Gunduz(former RIPE NCC Senior Software Engineer) in June 2004: <snip>
>>>
>>> He also proposed to remove the "referral-by" attribute, but there was
>>> no feedback to his e-mail. One can read his e-mail here:
>>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2004-June/002797.html In
>>> addition, while RIPE database manual says that "referral-by attribute
>>> may never be altered after the addition of the maintainer", one can
>>> easily change it at least in current RIPE database version.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is the "referral-by" attribute obsolete? Or is it needed in some
>>> specific situation? If not, I propose to remove the "referral-by"
>>> attribute in "mntner" object or at least make it optional.
>> What is to be gained by removing this attribute (or making it optional)?
>>
>> Currently the attribute is is quite prevalent in the existing database,
>> so outright deletion is out of the question in my honest opinion:
>>
>> princess at worker02:/var/spool/irr_database$ grep -c referral-by ripe.db
>> 46753
>> princess at worker02:/var/spool/irr_database$
>>
>> Maybe one of the RIPE database administrators can comment on current
>> "referral-by" usage? What has changed between 2004 and 2014?
>>
>> How are other RIRs using the attribute? If RIPE is to deprecate the
>> attribute, it might be worth writing a small Internet-Draft to update
>> RFC 2725.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Job
>