[routing-wg] 2018-06 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC IRR Database Non-Authoritative Route Object Clean-up)

* Job Snijders

> I am not sure that RIPE NCC can reliably figure out who to email - do
> you email the adversary?
> 
> It may be tricky to programmatically find the appropriate contacts to
> send the notification. The route/route6 object's "notify:" attribute
> (when present) is perhaps not entirely suitable in this context -
> since that mail address may not point to the resource holder but
> rather to a previous owner, an adversary or simply the wrong people.
> 
> If it is acceptable to the community that a percentage of
> notifications won't arrive at all, or go to the entirely wrong people
> - I'm willing to entertain the possibility of amending the proposal to
> add one-off notifications when an object is deleted. But I do think
> it'll lead to more confusion, rather than be useful.

Yes, any e-mail address associated with the object to be deleted
(notify:, mnt-by:, etc).

The recipient will in some cases be «the adversary», true, but I don't
see the a problem with that since he will be powerless to stop the
impending deletion anyway.

Also, it's also acceptable if the notifications don't reach anyone at
all. At least the attempt was made, we can't do much more than that.

That said, this grace period is not a deal-breaker for me. I'm fine
with the proposal either way, really.

Tore