[db-wg] geolocation and current purposes

Hi Carlos

On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 at 19:24, Carlos Friaças <cfriacas at fccn.pt> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> A small comment inline:
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
>
> (...)
> > So in what ways is "geofeed:" going to make it easy for network
> > operators to coordinate some activity? One of the ways network
> > operators have talked about how they want/need to use "geofeed:" data
> > is to provide content based on location of an IP address.
>
> Yes. Although *some* geolocation providers INSIST that their location
> assessment is better than the owner's network. They do this by ignoring
> messages or form data sent by owners.
>
> Keeping the attribute in the RIPE database may show ANYONE what is the
> location the owner says it is the correct location. And hopefully that
> should be the mandatory source for this information.

I have heard this said before. But this is where the wording of the
database purposes and use cases for "geofeed:" are critical. If this
was the main reason for "geofeed:" it would not be covered by the
current purposes. This is a single operator using the RIPE Database to
make an announcement or a statement about some aspect of their
resources to anyone. It is not 'coordination between network
operators', even though the announced information could be used by
other operators as well as anyone else. If you look back at the early
docs on the registry, geolocation data is not part of the registration
data. So none of the current purposes would cover this aspect. It does
seem to be a perfectly reasonable use of the RIPE Database for
resource holders to provide information about the resources to a wide
variety of people, not only other operators. This is why, as I keep
saying, we need to have a wider discussion about how people use the
database today and review the old defined purposes.

I know the purposes of the RIPE Database are the 'elephant in the
room'. No one wants to talk about them, review them, touch them,
consider them in any way. But they are critical in so many ways. To
review and re-write them is not an easy task. That is why the Database
Task Force should have started with such a review, but unfortunately
they didn't. I know a lot of people wish I would just shut up about
the purposes...but we must have this discussion. The historical
purposes written in the 1990s (and partially reviewed in 2010) are
perhaps not fit for purpose in the 2020s. Maybe the RIPE Database
purposes need to be defined by a RIPE policy. I am considering making
a policy proposal on this, which will force the discussion...

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

>
>
> > If a content providing network operator wishes to offer this content
> > to anyone in a specific location, that can be seen as a coordination
> > activity. The content provider can coordinate with other network
> > operators to establish that their customers are within this location
> > so they can access this content. If this interpretation is accepted by
> > the community then the context has changed. The legal team can now
> > reassess their advice in the context that the use of the "geofeed:"
> > data is now covered by the existing database purposes.
>
> Yes, please :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos
>
>