[db-wg] Comments on RIPE Database requirements progress

Colleagues

For the benefit of those who don't often check the mail archives of
the RIPE Database Task Force there have been 4 meetings in February
and March with 3 sets of minutes published so far on their mail
archive which can be found here:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-db-requirements-tf/

The chairs really appreciate the work done by the TF and acknowledge
that it is a long and complex task. I have read through these last
sets of minutes and feel some things need to be clarified. It may just
be language but the minutes suggest the TF has or will make decisions
on a number of items, rather than decisions on their recommendations
for these items. As it says in their charter "The task force is a
small and focused drafting team of up to six persons and not a
representative body....Consensus building will take place in the
appropriate RIPE working groups". Up to now there has been very little
discussion in any working group and certainly no consensus on any of
the issues raised as yet. I see the TF making a number of very
important recommendations which can then be discussed publicly in
appropriate WGs to see if there is a consensus.

Let me try to clarify or question some specific issues from recent
minutes. I am doing this here, rather than privately with the TF as I
have done in the past, as I feel more public discussion is needed on
this document the TF is producing.

"The task force also discussed what will happen after their final
report is published. They agreed that the implementation of the
requirements could be delegated to the relevant working groups but
mentioned that it will be up to the RIPE Chair team to decide what to
do next with it."

This implies that the requirements, as suggested by the TF, 'will be'
implemented and that the implementation details 'could be' delegated
to WGs. The requirements and recommendations themselves, from the TF,
need to be discussed in WGs to see if the community even agrees with
them. That needs to happen before any discussion on possible
implementation.

"Ed asked if the task force was considering to make a recommendation
regarding assignments as it seems to drive the creation of a lot of
unmaintained objects (especially PERSON objects). The task force
replied that they were working on a recommendation dealing with
assignments but didn’t reach a final decision yet."

Firstly it should not be possible to create any unmaintained objects
in the database now. If creating assignments is causing too much
personal data to be entered into the database it may be the issue of
personal data that needs to be addressed. The issue of assignments
(whether or not they are needed) should not be confused with that of
personal data. These two issues should be considered completely
separately.

"They [TF] also decided to only publish a final draft ahead of RIPE 82
and skip the publication of an intermediate draft."

This is unfortunate as it again reduces community discussion and the
chances for the community to offer any feedback to the TF to be
incorporated into the final draft.

"The task force discussed Randy and Denis’s recent comments on the
db-wg mailing list about NWI-2 [historical data]. Ed mentioned that
this was one final call from Denis to see if there are any interest
from the community to move NWI-2 forward. As the task force is already
working on this topic, Ed proposed to inform the db-wg that they can
close NWI-2. The task force agreed."

The NWIs are action points on the DB-WG. It is for the co-chairs to
decide on these action points based on discussion and consensus by the
WG members. The issue of historical data queries has been on and off
the agenda of the WG for a number of years. I am sure the members of
the DB-WG will have more to say yet on this issue. There have been
many individual comments. The key to resolving this issue is to get
all interested parties to discuss it, openly, at the same time.

"The task force decided to keep the current baseline [registration]
information data"

I presume you mean 'the TF recommends keeping...'. There has been no
discussion in any WG on changing this registration data so no
consensus either way as yet.

"The task force didn’t get enough information and arguments from the
questionnaire survey results to decide whether or not the legal
address of resource holders should be published in the RIPE Database.
The task force will therefore ask the community via email to get more
feedback on this topic before making a decision."

Again this is an important issue which cannot be decided behind closed
doors, based on private comments to a non representative body. There
are some major issues in this list of points. In an open, transparent,
bottom up, community driven industry these issues can only be decided
by open discussion and consensus within WGs. We all welcome the
recommendations put forward by the TF but they are by no means final
decisions on these issues. They will be the starting points for open,
public discussion leading to community consensus.

In the meantime, please feel free to comment on and discuss publicly
on this WG mailing list any issues regarding the TF draft requirements
document which can be found here
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/the-ripe-database-requirements-task-force-draft-document.pdf

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG