You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Call for agenda items

  • To: Matthew Robinson < >
  • From: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" < >
  • Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:08:19 +0200 (CEST)
  • Cc: "'tt-wg@localhost" < >
  • Reply-to: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" < >

Hi Matthew,

> 	I need to come up with an agenda for the forthcoming RIPE meeting.
> Is there anything that people wish to discuss?

I like to give my usual talk with an overview of the status of the project
and what we've done since RIPE-33.

> The mailing list has seen some activity concerning data disclosure and I
> think we should try to thrash out some guide lines for this. Can people
> suggest some possible solutions? They might be one of the following:
> * Keep the current guide lines
> * Allow all data to be freely used.
> * Allow data to be used anonymously
> * Allow data to be published freely but not for marketing purposes

* Put two passwords on the data: one for all pages, a second one
  that gives access to data from/to a particular site.  The first
  password can be used by the host of the box.  The second one can
  be given to customers of the that sites for technical purposes,
  not for publication or marketing. 

For example: an ISP puts in an SLA that the median delay between their
border routers and other ISP's will be less than X ms.  The customer gets
the password, so at any time he can verify that the requirement has been
met (or not).  

However, the customer is not allowed to publish the results.  And, unless
he is also a customer of another ISP, he doesn't have data to compare the
results against somebody else anyway.


Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@localhost
RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW:
Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.535-4414,  Fax -4445
1016 AB Amsterdam                   Home: +31.20.4195305
The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746  

The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was
lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious.          (Orlando NABC #19).

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>