[db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

Hi,


On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote:

> Job Snijders wrote on 14/10/2018 07:48:
>> When an operator makes a mistake, they've made a mistake.
>
>> When someone needs to create multiple ROAs, but only publishes one - it
>> is an operator error. When one misconfigures things... they are
>> misconfigured, no big deal. 
>
> operator error happens all the time.  In most cases, it's reversible and life 
> goes on.
>
> As it stands, the proposal allows some types of operator error to cause 
> irreversible changes to their exterior routing policy, with no notification 
> or grace period.  It may be that those changes are for the better, but there 
> will also be cases where it's for the worse.  The RIPE-NONAUTH data set 
> contains garbage, but it also contains plenty of accurate objects.

Do you care to ellaborate...?

Those "accurate objects" absolutely need to be there?


> If this proposal does not provide a mechanism to notify holders of 
> conflicting route/route6 objects and provide a reasonable grace period for 
> sorting conflicts, then the proposal is harmful and should not proceed.

The notifications should be issued towards ASN holders?

When the route/route6 objects were changed, there was no notification?


I don't agree notifications are mandatory in this case, hence i do support 
the proposal.

ps: I only think this needs some rephrasing -- "Due to the way 
authorisation (or lack of authorisation) is currently set up, there is 
room for abuse in the RIPE Database, by creating out-of-region inetnums 
and out-of-region ASN.s without the consent of the resource holder."
As of today, after NWI-5 implementation, these new objects shouldn't be 
possible. :-)


Cheers,
Carlos


> Nick
>
>