- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Improving Identification of RIPE NCC Members and Independent Resource Holders by Publishing Company Registration Numbers
by Andrejs Guba 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

Hello, Why should the RIPE Database be required to enable users to uniquely identify specific legal entities? The purpose of the RIPE Database, as defined in long-standing RIPE policies, is operational coordination, facilitating contact between network operators, and supporting incident response — not acting as a corporate registry or providing legally unambiguous identification of companies. 1. The proposal expands the RIPE Database beyond its intended purpose The RIPE Database was never designed to be: a business registry a KYC system a tool for legal verification of corporate identity Adding national registration numbers pushes the database into an area that was explicitly avoided for decades and introduces duties and expectations that RIPE NCC should not carry. 2. Security and operational risks for resource holders A verified company registration number is a powerful OSINT key that enables: precise mapping between IP resources and corporate structures targeted attacks against specific businesses easier identification of operators in sensitive jurisdictions expanded attack surface for ransomware, DDoS extortion, and other threats Many operators understandably prefer not to expose more legal identifiers than strictly necessary. 3. The proposed benefit is marginal compared to the risks The argument about identical organisation names, transliteration issues, or address discrepancies describes edge cases, while the risks of publishing registration numbers are systemic and permanent. Existing attributes already allow for operational identification: org-name country address abuse-c / role-c LIR identifier verified contact details If further clarification is needed, users can directly contact the LIR or the RIPE NCC. 4. Risk of harming organisations in politically sensitive environments In some countries, linking IP resources to a precise legal entity through a government-issued ID number can expose businesses to: political pressure regulatory targeting unlawful interference censorship attempts The RIPE Database should remain a tool for technical coordination, not a legally authoritative directory of corporate identities. I therefore believe this proposal requires much deeper consideration of its broader implications, and in its current form I do not support the introduction of a mandatory reg-nr: attribute. Andrejs Guba Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group > session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to > the > organisation object type. > > Problem Statement: > The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet > Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC > co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the > validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource > holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not > always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main > reasons: > > 1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can > legally register with the same or very similar names. > 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, > converting names from and into Latin characters can produce > inconsistent > or inaccurate results. > 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal > information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained > by > the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) > can create confusion and make identification more difficult. > > > Solution Definition: > Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained > organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers > issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this > information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities. > > Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will > significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately > identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company > registries. > > Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be > published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope. > > > Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome. > > Regards > Marco Schmidt > Manager Registration Services > RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: Recent changes to the Database Terms and Conditions
by Maria Stafyla 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

Hi Denis, Thanks for your message and apologies for the delayed response. The recent updates to the Terms and Conditions were introduced to facilitate the implementation of the new Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) by those members that fall within the scope of this Act. Such members include insurance companies, financial institutions, etc. By introducing the points you mentioned, we aim to facilitate, as much as possible, our members’ ability to meet their obligations. By setting out these general provisions in the clauses, we wanted to make clear, among others what possibilities exist, for example, in terms of the audits, security checks, and incident reporting, and to clearly state in writing the options our members have in these areas in relation to the use of the RIPE Database. Regarding your questions about clauses 5.6, 5.7, who “the Registrant” and “the Maintainer” refer to, whether they can report any identified incidents or incidents relating to their resources, what types of incidents are meant and whether Users can also report incidents, please see below: For the phrasing, much of the text follows standard legal language (when we use “the” before “Registrant” or “Maintainer” this means they must be read as the terms defined in Article 1 of the T&Cs). As the amendments were part of our efforts to facilitate members that fall under the scope of DORA, we only indicated the incident reporting ability with regards to Registrants and Maintainers. They may report any incident they identify when using the RIPE Database. This does not restrict any user to also report outages or incidents to our Technical Emergency Hotline and security issues to our security team, following our RIPE NCC Technical Emergency Hotline <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/support/contact/technical-emergency-hotline/> process. In relation to your questions about 5.9 and audit reports, the scope of a security check or audit depends on the matter at hand and might differ on a case-to-case basis. An available report of such a check or audit may be provided to a Registrant or Maintainer subject to a non-disclosure agreement. Please refer above on how to read the terms “Registrant” or “Maintainer”. Although the RIPE Database is publicly accessible, certain information within it is not. Therefore, information about protection, integrity and confidentiality of the data remains relevant for the Database in this context. Regarding your point about 2023-04 ‘Add AGGREGATED -BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments’ to our understanding, this proposal did not make IPv4 assignments optional but introduced the option to group assignments in a single registration when the assignments share the same purpose and contact details. Even for such grouped assignments, authorised parties will still be able to find the contact details of their responsible party and contact them. Lastly, thank you for pointing out the missing text in article 2.6, we’ve corrected the error on the website. We have also separated the two definitions of RPSL and Internet Number Registry that Piotr noticed. Kind regards, Maria Stafyla Legal Counsel Specialist RIPE NCC > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:04:00PM +0100, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > > Dear Denis, All, > > "2.6. A Maintainer may only Update the RIPE Database with these types of > data:" > This line ends with a ':'. That suggests there should be a list following > it. There is no list. If you change ':' to '.' then the sentence makes no > sense. > > > The list comes right after that sentence. From what I can see, it's just > missing bullet points. I'll pass this information on to the relevant > team. > > Now let's look at "Article 1 - Definitions" > "Internet number resources - globally unique address space (IPv4 and IPv6) > and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) issued by any Internet Number > Registry." > Note it says 'any' Internet Number Registry. An LIR is a Local 'Internet > (Number) Registry'. So 'Internet number resources' covers address space > issued by an LIR. These are assignments. > > > For some unknown reason, the definition of Internet Number Registry > (INR) has been linked to and placed at the end of the RPSL definition. > That definition uses the word "allocates". I'll pass this information on > to the relevant team. > > > Let me report back to you that, thanks to Marita's prompt help, these > two formatting issues have already been fixed. I hope that helps. > > Best, > Piotr > > -- > Piotr Strzyżewski > > >

1 0

New draft NWI process
by David Tatlisu 14 Nov '25

14 Nov '25

Hello Everybody, You are welcome to look over a draft of a new definition of the Numbered Work Item process. This new version keeps the existing process largely the same with some procedural tweaks here and there and also improves the readability of the text. Let us know what you think about this proposed change, good or bad. We'd like to make it official in about three weeks. NEW DRAFT Text: ––––– RIPE Database Working Group Numbered Work Items In order to facilitate discussion about issues and solutions, as well as report on the progress made with solution implementation, the RIPE Database Working Group employs a process using Numbered Work Items (NWIs). Please note that this does not replace the Policy Development Process. Instead it is used for smaller work items and helps to facilitate the communication between the DB WG and the RIPE NCC. Kickstart: Anyone can contact the RIPE DB WG co-chairs and present a proposal or a problem statement. Alternatively this can also be sent to the WG mailing list directly. If there is interest in this work item, the Database WG co-chairs will ask the RIPE NCC to assign a number to this work item and include it on the list of numbered work items (NWIs). Problem definition: After an NWI is created, the proposal or problem statement will be discussed in the WG. This can mean further specifying the problem statement and including example cases of the problem to clarify the scope. After two to three weeks the WG co-chairs will determine of there is a consensus and will either post a clearly defined problem statement to the list, or if there is no agreement on a problem statement, the NWI will be closed. Solution definition: Anyone, including RIPE NCC staff, can propose solutions to a work item's problem statement. The RIPE NCC will also provide an implementation analysis that can include feasibility, expected workload, proposed solutions, impact on other work items etc. In this phase, the RIPE NCC together with the RIPE DB WG co-chairs will also determine if the NWI might have an impact on an existing policy or if the NWI might in fact lead to a change in policy or a new policy. In this case, the WG co-chairs are advised to use the more formal Policy Development Process (PDP) instead of the NWI process. Implementation: Once the WG agrees on the proposed solution, the RIPE NCC can start implementing it, keeping the WG up to date about the timeframe, milestones, documentation etc. The RIPE NCC will also update the entry of the NWI on the table of NWIs accordingly. Finished: The project ends when the change has been deployed in the production environment. Cancelled: The project can also end when the working group decides to cancel it. The RIPE NCC will update the list of NWIs on a regular basis to reflect the status of each NWI. ––––– EXISTING Text for your convenience ––––– In order to facilitate an ordered discussion about issues and solutions, as well as report on the progress made with solution implementation, the RIPE Database Working Group employs the following process using Numbered Work Items (NWIs): Kickstart: To kickstart the process, any db-wg participant can email the chairs with a snippet of text (a rough problem statement) and formally ask the chairs to make it a work item. The chairs can then say “yes”, and assign it a number, or “no”. If a number is assigned, the work item will be routed through the following three phases: Phase 1: Problem Definition In this phase we will work as a group on formulating an exact problem definition: text goes back and forth in the working group, example cases of the problem are provided. In a timeframe of two to three weeks the chairs declare consensus on the problem statement of the NWI. Phase 1 output: A clearly defined problem statement, or a conclusion if we cannot agree upon a problem statement definition. If the latter is true, the NWI cannot proceed to Phase 2. Phase 2: Solution Definition Solution finding: People can propose solutions to a work item's problem statement. Solutions can come from RIPE NCC staff or from any working group member. The RIPE NCC may offer an implementation analysis on proposed solutions or aspects of solutions. For the NWI to move to Phase 3, the RIPE NCC has to provide the working group with a summary of their understanding of the solution, and the chairs declare consensus on the group's acceptance of this summary. Phase 3: Development and Deployment Phase The RIPE NCC writes the code, sets timelines and milestones and documents the transitions/migration plan if applicable. Finish: The project ends when the change has been deployed in the production environment. Cancelled: The project can also end when the working group decides to cancel it. Every month the RIPE NCC will update this page with an overview of all open NWIs, a brief summary of each, who is taking action and what that action is. ––––– I express my gratitude to all those who worked on this draft, and everybody who took the time to offer their feedback. Kind regards, Peter and David

2 3

Recent changes to the Database Terms and Conditions
by Karolina Bochenek 13 Nov '25

13 Nov '25

Dear all, At its 188th RIPE NCC meeting on 4-5 September 2025, the RIPE NCC Executive Board approved amendments to the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. These changes are in response to the EU regulation Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) which came into effect in January 2025. While the requirements apply to financial institutions, the RIPE NCC aims to facilitate the implementation of this regulation for those entities that are RIPE NCC members to a reasonable extent. The following changes include: Adding details of how we manage planned maintenance and how incidents can be reported. We also added information about security measures and audits (articles 5.5-5.9) Adding subcontractor, service level and data protection information (articles 8.4-8.6) The updated RIPE Database Terms and Conditions are available at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/terms You can find more information about DORA and other relevant regulations in the RIPE NCC Trust Portal: https://trust.ripe.net/legal-compliance/ The RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting minutes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2025/188th-executive-… The amendment will come into effect on 13/11/2025. Kind regards, Karolina Bochenek RIPE NCC

3 3

Archiving the "Action List"
by Peter Hessler 21 Oct '25

21 Oct '25

As seen on the website, the Database Working Group has an Action List, instead of an Action Movie. https://www.ripe.net/community/wg/active-wg/db/action-list/ From a basic perusal of them, this seems to be a basic tracking system of TODOs and Proposals. Notice it says "last updated 7 May 2009". I propose we simply archive this list. If anything is still relevant, please bring it up as if it were new. Peter Hessler, On behalf of the DB WG Co-Chairs

4 5

RIPE90 Database Working Group Minutes
by David Tatlisu 15 Oct '25

15 Oct '25

Hi Everyone, The draft minutes from our session at RIPE90 have been published on the RIPE website, available at https://www.ripe.net/community/wg/active-wg/db/minutes/ripe-database-workin… We'd like to thank Hans from the RIPE NCC for preparing the draft. Please review the minutes, and send any necessary corrections to the working group mailing list. David Tatlisu, On behalf of the DB WG Co-Chairs

2 1

Fwd: Re: [ripe-list] Re: beIN && RIPE NCC && Notorious Markets
by Nick Hilliard 09 Oct '25

09 Oct '25

Maybe add some comments in whois output to highlight which fields in which objects are authoritative? Or if there were a page put up on https://trust.ripe.net/ which explains this in more detail? There's a lot of head-boggle going on here, even for people who are familiar with whois output. Nick -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [ripe-list] Re: beIN && RIPE NCC && Notorious Markets Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 08:11:57 +0200 From: Daniel Karrenberg <dfk(a)karrenberg.net> To: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> CC: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling(a)419.consulting>, ripe-list(a)ripe.net Maybe it is finally time to make it *really obvious* even to the most ignorant which RIPE DB objects are authoritative info and which are not? --- Sent from a handheld device. > On 8. Oct 2025, at 19:49, Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> wrote: > > Andrew Campling wrote on 06/10/2025 15:27: >> Irrespective of any view regarding rights holders, the lack of effective KYC procedures is also a problem in combating both malicious and illegal content. For example, you may be surprised that the Internet Watch Foundation finds a large percentage of illegal CSAM images hosted within Europe (here <https://www.iwf.org.uk/annual-data-insights-report-2024/data-and-insights/g…>) – for transparency, I’m an IWF trustee. I am not a lawyer but I understand that KYC is a requirement under the EU’s NIS2 Directive. >> In my view, extending effective KYC processes across the ecosystem will add friction, making the life of malicious actors more difficult. > > the ripe ncc already implements kyc for its members and direct assignment resource holders. You can't get a PI assignment without validating your identity, and there are comparable processes for businesses who wish to become LIRs. These are hard-enforced. If you don't comply, your application will be rejected. > > In addition to this, all LIRs are subject to a periodic Assisted Registry Check. > > The BEIN letter seems to confuse data about RIPE members / direct assignees with general end users of ISPs. > > The confusion may be happening because the RIPE database is a mixture of several different categories of data. Some of the data is authoritative (i.e. RIPE LIR and Direct Assignments) and some is non-authoritative (i.e. LIR assignments). A good deal of the non authoritative data is of very poor quality, but the authoritative data is all subject to RIPE KYC processes and regularly audited. Mixing these two data sets up does not benefit anyone. > > It's the job of the ISP to ensure that they have KYC processes with their end users. > > Nick > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/ > As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

2 2

Clarification of Database documentation
by denis walker 06 Oct '25

06 Oct '25

Colleagues Some documentation issues were raised during a discussion of contact methods. They have nothing really to do with the issue of contacts so I have started a new thread on the documentation. It is not the most urgent issue regarding the RIPE Database so you may not care about any of this. But documentation should be correct or it is a waste of time having it. If no one comments, maybe the chairs can pass judgement. Three issues are raised here: -Attribute properties -Description of AGGREGATED-BY-LIR -Missing attribute Attribute properties For years we only described attributes as mandatory, optional or generated. But there are some attributes that do not exactly fit any of these categories. Mandatory means that every instance of this object type must have this attribute present. Optional means it is entirely your choice if you include it or not. Some attributes sit in between these two options. They don't need to be in every instance of the objects, but sometimes it is not your choice to leave it out. There are business rules built into the software that determine when certain attributes must be present or if you can ignore it. Examples include abuse-c and org. In most instances of an INETNUM object the org attribute is optional. But if it is an allocation, then it must be included. So it is not truly mandatory or optional. When I re-wrote the database documentation in 2014 I tried to cover this middle ground giving these attributes the property of being 'required' [1]. But as Ed just pointed out, the word 'required' suggests it is 'mandatory'. Certainly for a non native English speaker it is easy to confuse these meanings. So it is not the best word to use. The only word I can think of that might reflect the true meaning of these attributes is 'variable'. Sometimes it must be there, sometimes you can choose. There will be another document or policy that explains the business rules that determine how it is used. So unless someone has a better suggestion for naming this attribute property, I recommend that we adopt 'variable' in the documentation and in the templates returned by a whois query with -t and -v. Description of AGGREGATED-BY-LIR This is described in both the database documentation [2] and in the address policy [3]. Neither is an accurate and clear description and they are both different. In the address policy it says "The purpose and the contact details must be consistent throughout the whole assignment.". This confuses the terms 'aggregation' and 'assignments'. An aggregation is a collection of 'multiple' assignments. So you must either refer to the aggregation or the collection of assignments.You cannot refer to a single assignment. This is not just splitting hairs. For a non native English speaker new to the database, they are reading this to try to work out what this means. The current wording suggests the aggregation represents a single block of assigned address space, rather than a collection of multiple address blocks, possibly of different sizes. The purpose of an assignment is not publicly defined or documented anywhere. What is the purpose of a block of assigned address space? Can it be 'used by an End User's public network' or 'used by the LIR for their own infrastructure'? But then these are two different purposes. So by definition you should not be able to aggregate a mix of End User's address space with an LIR's own infrastructure. Is that the case? How does anyone outside of the LIR know? Should the purpose be documented in a remarks attribute? Should an aggregation have a "purpose:" attribute? It seems like there was such a rush to make individual assignments optional, the actual details of the aggregation were not very well thought through. What does "the contact details must be consistent" mean? All the assignments have a tech-c? All the tech-c references are to a ROLE object or a PERSON object? They all include an email address? They all refer to the same ROLE object? All the different ROLE objects reference the same email address? It is not good enough to say "but we all know what it means". A new LIR, new to the policy documents, new to the database may not know what this means. That is why they are reading it. There is no explicit mention that the multiple assignments can all be of different sizes. Unless the "assignment-size:" attribute is included. Is it sufficient for all these details to be explained in the RIPE Database documentation, that is only advisory? Possibly leaving the policy statement so vague that it is easy to misunderstand or misinterpret. Either way, all of these points need to be explained, somewhere. I haven't even touched on rules that should have so obviously been documented somewhere. For example, if aggregations are created retrospectively, the boundary between aggregations within a single allocation must match the boundaries of the encompassed assignments. If the assignments are deleted before creating the aggregations then the software cannot enforce this and there is no way for anyone to verify this was done. The whole concept of aggregation was badly specified. But that is another story... Missing attribute There is no mention in the documentation of the INETNUM or INET6NUM attribute 'prefixlen'. References [1] https://docs.db.ripe.net/RIPE-Database-Structure/Attribute-Properties [2] https://docs.db.ripe.net/RPSL-Object-Types/Descriptions-of-Primary-Objects#… [3[ https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-826/#70-types-of-address-space cheers denis

4 6

RIPE Database Release 1.119
by Edward Shryane 01 Oct '25

01 Oct '25

Dear colleagues, RIPE Database release 1.119 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment for testing. We plan to deploy to production on Wednesday 1st October. This release contains the following main changes : * Support multiple maintainers in scope (#1866) * Fix indentation when Serialising JSON to Avoid Indentation Bug (#1855) * Always add Warning When using Password Authentication (#1859) * Return Not implemented in case of e164 ENUM domain (#1846) * Allow empty From: address in SMTP request (#1841) * title should be type in RDAP relations (#1842) * Retry on Failure during GRS (mirror) import download (#1837) The full list of changes is visible in the source repository: https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/compare/505c5f7...1c439eb The release notes are on the website: https://docs.db.ripe.net/Release-Notes#ripe-database-release-1-119 More information on the Release Candidate environment can be found on our website: https://docs.db.ripe.net/Release-Notes/ The data in the Release Candidate environment is a dummified copy of production from 15th September. Please let us know if you find any issues with this release in the RC environment. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

2 1

NWI proposal: adjusting contact method requirements and adding new methods
by Leo Vegoda 30 Sep '25

30 Sep '25

Hi, A while back Cynthia, Dmitry and I looked at the possibility of adding new contact methods. Dmitry presented this at RIPE 88: https://ripe88.ripe.net/archives/video/1347/ I've tried to put this into a more complete NWI and offer it for discussion. The TLDR is: 1) Align the requirement levels for contact methods 2) Let people use new contact methods, like Signal We hope that by offering the methods people want to use, the contact data in the RIPE Database can be as useful as is possible. Kind regards, Leo ## Problem statement The requirement level for contact methods for person and role objects are inconsistent. This is both confusing and inconvenient. This is a proposal to add flexibility to the contact methods offered at the database level. It is not a proposal to change policy requirements for contact methods. This proposal is limited to admin-c and tech-c contact types. Our world offers more contact methods than were available when the currently supported methods were chosen for the RIPE Database. User acceptance of these methods differ by country and generation. Whether this proposal is accepted or not, it is good to review the rationale for these rules and have an updated rationale published. 1. Person and role objects have four contact methods. A postal address is mandatory for both. A phone is mandatory for person objects but not role objects. E-mail is mandatory for role but not person objects. 2. Postal mail is less useful than it was 20 years ago. Some countries are reducing the frequency of postal deliveries. And geographically distributed teams find postal mail less useful. 3. The telephone is becoming less useful, too. Call volumes are dropping and popular psychology publications explain why calls are less likely to be answered: - https://www.statista.com/statistics/551035/finland-call-volume-by-type-of-c… - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg8jllq283o - https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/un-numb/202405/why-gen-zers-keep-… ## Proposal We should provide contacts with more flexibility. We should also add new options that were not available when the RIPE Database's contact methods were last reviewed. The three elements below follow on from NWI-15, which is based on the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force recommendations for what should be published about resource holders. The registry needs to retain the full set of required data. The DBTF report did not mention contacts methods for the resources. 1. Align the contact method requirements between role and person objects used in admin-c and tech-c attributes. Make all contact methods optional for the public RIPE Database as long as one is chosen. There is no point publishing a contact method that will not be used. That would just waste the time of people trying to make contact. 2. Add support for new contact methods in the RIPE Database, including SIP (RFC 3969), Signal, Telegram, and WhatsApp. 3. Add support for RFC 8605 (ICANN Extensions for the Registration Data Access Protocol) and show the HTTPS intermediary and/or private URI where one is available. Making these changes will require updates to the RPSL and RDAP publication methods. The RIPE NCC should manage the specifics of the design and implementation. ## Recommendation for Impact Assessment The impact assessment provided by the RIPE NCC should note any contact method requirements specified in policy. It should also note where the policy does not specify a contact method requirement. The RIPE NCC might want to note the impact of enforcing policy requirements when more user choice is offered at the database layer.

10 24