- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects
by William Weber 16 Nov '22

16 Nov '22

> Limiting database updates to only accounts associated with LIR sounds reasonable. I cannot support this unless it is limited to AS-SET and similar; i for example hand out IPv6 prefixes to endusers and that would be impossible if they are unable to create MNT/Person/ORGs. I support this in general for AS-SET which makes no sense to have access to unless you have an ASN, but the startup maintainer process should stay the same. Same for ORGs - to request ASNs the enduser needs an ORG and i as LIR should not have to create that or even have MNT-BY on it. — William Sent from my iPhone > On 16.11.2022, at 12:00, db-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: > > Send db-wg mailing list submissions to > db-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > db-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > db-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of db-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically > named AS-SET objects (Pierfrancesco Caci) > 2. Re: proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically > named AS-SET objects (Yang Yu) > 3. Re: proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically > named AS-SET objects (Teun Vink) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:48:18 +0100 > From: Pierfrancesco Caci <pcaci(a)pccwglobal.com> > To: Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new > non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects > Message-ID: <20221116104818.25bba55e(a)lavoro.tippete.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Hi > Speaking as be.ccafrique and uk.pccwg-uk I support Job's proposal. > > Pf > >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:41:16 +0000 >> Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> >> CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >> >> Dear DB-WG, >> >> Speaking in individual capacity. >> >> In RFC 2622 section 5 specifies the naming convention for AS-SET >> objects. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2622#section-5.1 >> There basically are two styles: >> >> * "short" (example: AS-SNIJDERS) >> * "hierarchical" (example: AS15562:AS-SNIJDERS) >> >> Problem statement >> ================= >> In recent weeks a number of hypergiant cloud providers have faced the >> thorny effects of adversarial AS-SET object naming collisions between >> IRR databases. >> >> An example of this phenomenon is the existence of AS-AMAZON in both RADB >> and RIPE. According to https://www.peeringdb.com/net/1418 the RADB copy >> of the object is the the correct one and populated with a number of >> members entries. The RIPE one is empty, and not under control of Amazon. >> >> The existence of the AS-AMAZON object in the RIPE database might cause >> some operators to inadvertently apply empty prefix-filters to EBGP >> sessions which in turn causes various problems. >> >> It seems Amazon has no recourse to get the AS-AMAZON object removed from >> the RIPE database; because the existence of that object in the RIPE >> database does not violate any policies (as far as I know). But perhaps, >> going forward, this community can do a little bit more to help prevent >> similar situations from happening to others. >> >> Solution proposal >> ================= >> I think the solution is to - GOING FORWARD - disallow creation of new >> AS-SET objects which follow the 'short' naming style. >> >> The advantage of hierarchical naming is that the existing authorization >> rules as applied by the RIPE Whois Server database engine do a decent >> job of protecting/separating namespaces. 'Grandfathering' existing >> short-named objects ensures that implementation of this solution >> proposal causes minimal (if any) disruption to existing workflows. >> >> The RIPE database engine blocking creation of short-named AS-SETs might >> help nudge the industry towards making hierarchical naming the norm. >> >> Related work >> ============ >> Related work throughout the registry industry: IRRd version 4 forces new >> AS-SET objects to be structured hierarchically: >> https://github.com/irrdnet/irrd/issues/408 >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Job >> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg >> > > > -- > Pierfrancesco Caci <pcaci(a)pccwglobal.com> > VP Network & Security Architecture - AS3491 Peering Coordinator > Tel.: +39 0287 049 871 > www.pccwglobal.com > > This message (and any attachments) may contain information that is > confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. > The message is intended solely for the named addressee (or a person > responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the > intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, > print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If > you have received this message in error, please destroy the message or > delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. PCCW > Global cannot guarantee that this e-mail is secure, error-free and/or > virus-free as e-mail messages could be intercepted, altered, corrupted, > lost, delayed or become incomplete and/or infected by viruses in the > course of their transmission. PCCW Global and the sender therefore do > not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from any errors or > omissions in the contents of this e-mail. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 04:06:57 -0600 > From: Yang Yu <yang.yu.list(a)gmail.com> > To: denis walker <ripedenis(a)gmail.com> > Cc: Job Snijders <job(a)sobornost.net>, db-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new > non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects > Message-ID: > <CAFwKRnR1U7X99nXsE_pqk982Hf4BXOZ9RoV+Aa7Y4C-Zyu=4fA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > I support this proposal. > >> It seems Amazon has no recourse to get the AS-AMAZON object removed from >> the RIPE database; because the existence of that object in the RIPE >> database does not violate any policies (as far as I know). > > Also ran into this issue and would like to see policy support to > handle this kind of abuse. > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 3:08 PM denis walker via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> Interesting timing. I was about to make the same suggestion but for a >> different reason...accountability. Currently ANYONE can create a set >> object in the RIPE Database. You can be completely anonymous, not a >> member or LIR, hold no resources. All you need to do is create a ROLE, >> MNTNER and set object. > > Anyone with an email can make a RIPE account and start creating > objects in RIPE database. In other registries there are usually some > safeguards on user / mntner object creation. Limiting database updates > to only accounts associated with LIR sounds reasonable. > > > Yang > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 11:19:17 +0100 > From: "Teun Vink" <teun(a)bit.nl> > To: "Job Snijders" <job(a)sobornost.net> > Cc: db-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new > non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects > Message-ID: <A2DF4E9C-3BA7-415C-8C0A-FDBE11BF9736(a)bit.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Hi all, > > On 14 Nov 2022, at 18:41, Job Snijders via db-wg wrote: > [...] >> Solution proposal >> ================= >> I think the solution is to - GOING FORWARD - disallow creation of new >> AS-SET objects which follow the 'short' naming style. >> > > I support this proposal. > > Kind regards, > -- > Teun Vink > BIT | teun(a)bit.nl | +31 318 648 688 > KvK: 09090351 | GPG: 0xFC8B25D6 | RIPE: TEUN-RIPE > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg > > > ------------------------------ > > End of db-wg Digest, Vol 135, Issue 8 > *************************************

1 0

RIPE 85 session
by denis walker 08 Nov '22

08 Nov '22

Colleagues I would like to apologise for missing the DB-WG session at RIPE 85. I was taken ill the night before with severe gastric problems, which I have only recently recovered from. Now I am still recovering from covid also. I would like to thank my co-chair William for stepping in at the last minute to run the whole show. I have some comments to make on each presentation, but don't expect much from me this week. I will start to get my head round these issues again next week. cheers denis co-chair DB-Wg

1 0

Support for "::" notation in the "members" field
by James Bensley 04 Nov '22

04 Nov '22

Dear Working Group, I want to discuss a format change to the "members" field of the AS-SET and Route-Set objects in the RIPE DB. I do not know what the process is for this so please guide me if this is the wrong place to raise this. Specifically, I want to discuss adding supported for the "::" source notation in the "members" field of an AS-SET or Route-Set. Currently my AS-SET might look like the following when the tree is fully expanded: as-set: AS4200000011:AS-EXAMPLE-11 -> members: AS4200000011 -> members: AS4200000012:AS-EXAMPLE-12 - -> members: AS4200000012 - -> members: AS4200000021 -> members: AS4200000013:AS-EXAMPLE-13 - -> members: AS4200000013 - -> members: AS4200000022:AS-EXAMPLE-22 - - -> members: AS4200000031 When a peer or upstream is building the prefix lists towards me (AS4200000011), they need to generate a prefix list for my entire AS tree/route set tree. The problem is that historically objects with the same name have been registered in different IRR databases. This causes a problem because it's not clear which IRR DB should be used to pull the prefix list for a given ASN. For example, AS-GOOGLE current exists in RIPE and APNIC IRR DBs, but the AS-SET in both DBs is empty: $whois -h whois.ripe.net AS-GOOGLE | grep -E "as-set|members" as-set: AS-GOOGLE $whois -h whois.apnic.net AS-GOOGLE | grep -E "as-set|members" as-set: AS-GOOGLE As per Google's peeringdb page, the correct data source for their AS-SET is RADB: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/433 $whois -h whois.radb.net AS-GOOGLE | grep -E "as-set|members" as-set: AS-GOOGLE members: AS11344 members: AS13949 members: AS15169 ... The above query to RADB produces the correct information. Historically people have registered objects with the same AS-SET or Route-Set name, in different IRR DBs, both by accident and maliciously, and this practice continues today. It is very difficult to get these issues resolved in a timely manner and the result on daily operations is that we can't establish a new peering session with a customer/peer/upstream or update our prefix list facing an existing customer/peer/upstream because we can't generate the prefix towards them. We need to be able to signal which IRR DB is authoritative for an AS-SET or Route-Set object. For this reason I ask, what it would take to allow the use of the "::" indicator in the "members" field of an AS-SET and Route-Set so that in my own AS-SET I can specify the correct source for the direct members (my customers), and in their AS-SET's they can specify the correct source for each of their customers, and so on all the way down the tree, so that I end up with my AS-SET tree looking like the following when fully expanded: -> members: RIPE::AS4200000011 -> members: RADB::AS4200000012:AS-EXAMPLE-12 - -> members: RIPE::AS4200000012 - -> members: ARIN::AS4200000021 -> members: ARIN::AS4200000013:AS-EXAMPLE-13 - -> members: APNIC::AS4200000013 - -> members: ARIN::AS4200000022:AS-EXAMPLE-22 - - -> members: RADB::AS4200000031 Kind regards, James Bensley (he/him) Network Team Inter.link GmbH Boxhagener Str. 80, 10245 Berlin, Germany Email: hello(a)inter.link, Phone: +49-030-577123821 Registry: Local court Charlottenburg, HRB 138876 Managing directors: Marc Korthaus, Theo Voss

2 2

Privacy proposal, concerns
by Frank Breedijk 27 Oct '22

27 Oct '22

Dear all, I’m new to this mailing list, but joined because I’m concerned about this policy proposal: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01 <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01> I am a volunteer for DIVD, the Dutch Institute for Vulnerability Disclosure. We are a non profit organisation that aims to make the digital world safer by reporting vulnerabilities we find in digital systems to the people who can fix them. For this we heavily reply on whois and the underlying database like RIPE NCC’s DB. (For more information see https://www.divd.nl <https://www.divd.nl/> and https://csirt.divd.nl <https://csirt.divd.nl/>) We are very concerned about the impact this proposal may have on us and on RIPE NCC. The basis of the proposal is good. Let’s stop collecting and publishing PII in RIPE DB, especially where it doesn’t serve the purpose of the DB. But RIP NCC is setting itself up for a lot of trouble by going to “permission” as the GDPR ground for processing instead of “legitimate interests pursued by the controller” Especially this line in the proposal can be explained as such: “All organisations holding resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC, or documented in the RIPE Database, must sign a declaration that they have read and understood this policy and that either all the data for their organisation and resources contained in the RIPE Database is fully compliant with this policy or they are working towards full compliance.” With this statement in the policy it is quite possible that RIPE NCC at some point will have to choose between two evils: a) Either revoking all resources of those parties that did not sign a declaration b) Removing all PII of those parties from the database. What would the impact be? I analyzed 7476 IP addresses that popped up in a certain case using ripeSTAT and whois (see attachment) 458 Afrinic 1052 APNIC 1277 ARIN 190 LACNIC 4090 RIPE 409 no RIR in ripeSTAT abuse finder API I marked all email addresses that were not clearly a “function”/group/department mailbox as personal. If we could not report to email addresses that were personal we would not be able to report abuse to 929 out of 7476 ip addresses. (~12%) 201 of these IP addresses belong to the rir RIPE. (of the 4090 marked as belonging to RIPE, about 5%) 180 of these come from the ripeSTAT API, so they come from a CONTACT record, not a PERSON record. In only 21 cases I had to resort to whois to get a PERSON record. Conclusion: A small but significant portion of “abuse” addresses are “personal” Most of these are in CONTACT records not PERSON records. Besides these email addresses, RIPE NCC will have to do the work to be GDPR compliant for other PII anyway. IP addresses are considered PII in The Netherlands, a work/group phone number/email can still be PII, e.g. in the case where the company is a single person company or the company name can be traced back to a natural person, so going this route creates a lot of work and doesn’t actually reduce the compliance load on RIPE NCC. Regards, Frank Breedijk +31643822637

3 5

2022-01 Review Phase (Personal Data in the RIPE Database)
by Angela Dall'Ara 20 Oct '22

20 Oct '22

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2022-01, "Personal Data in the RIPE Database", is now in the Review Phase. The goal of this proposal is to allow the publication of verified Personal Data in the RIPE Database only when they are justified by its purpose. The proposal has been updated to version 3.0 after the last round of discussion. This version differs from version 2.0 as follows: - it is not explicitly proscribed to enter the name of a person in role objects - the verification of fax numbers is not required The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01 https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01#impact-analysis And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Review Phase is to continue discussion of the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the Working Group (WG) Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <db-wg(a)ripe.net> before 4 November 2022. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC

5 6

Agenda RIPE85 - Database Working Group
by William Sylvester 11 Oct '22

11 Oct '22

Below is the agenda for the Database Working Group for RIPE85. If you would like to present, have questions, comments, or requested changes please let the chairs know. Best regards, William & Denis DB-WG Chairs A. Introduction - 10 min * Welcome * Scribe * Jabber * Chairs & Succession Planning * Agenda B. NWI Update – 20 mins Denis Walker, Co-Chair DB-WG C. Operational Update– 20 mins Edward Shryane, RIPE NCC D. Geofeed Discussion – 10 mins Denis Walker, Co-Chair DB-WG E. Proposal 2022-01 – 10 mins Denis Walker, Co-Chair DB-WG Z. AOB (open discussion)

2 1

RIPE Database Service Criticality Questionnaire
by denis walker 10 Oct '22

10 Oct '22

Colleagues [Apologies to Job for copying your email from the Routing WG but you explained it well :) ] The RIPE NCC has asked the Database WG Chairs to facilitate a working group conversation on framing the RIPE Database service subcomponents in terms of criticality. At the bottom of this email is a form that focuses on three components: confidentiality, integrity and availability. Each component is split into three questions (a, b, and c), a total of 9 questions are being put forward to the working group. We envisage this process to be a public consultation: WG participants can submit (free-form) responses, and also chime in by replying to each other's responses; hopefully bringing us to a degree of consensus in the coming weeks. We believe this is a unique opportunity to help the RIPE NCC! The goal is to help the RIPE NCC develop a deeper understanding of how the moving parts fit together, which in turn helps decide where and how to invest resources. >>> Your feedback is much appreciated! <<< cheers, denis, William DB WG co-chairs ----------------------- FORM STARTS HERE ----------------------- Service Criticality Form - RIPE Database Introduction ------------ This form is used to gather input from the community on the service criticality of the RIPE database. The framework is detailed in https://labs.ripe.net/author/razvano/service-criticality-framework/ The service criticality has three components: * Confidentiality What is the highest possible impact of a data confidentiality -related incident (data leak)? * Integrity What is the highest possible impact of a data integrity -related incident (hacking)? * Availability What is the highest possible impact of a service availability -related incident (outage)? All our services are designed with at least 99% availability, so please consider outages of up to 22 hours. Service Purpose --------------- The RIPE Database is the public internet registry for the RIPE NCC region, comprised of: * Internet Number Registry * Internet Routing Registry * Reverse Delegations The critical parts of the service are: * Query (Port 43, REST API, NRTM, Web Application) * FTP dumps (whole database and split files) The non-critical part of the service is: * Update (REST API, Mailupdates, Syncupdates) Service Criticality ------------------- Please review the following three areas. (1) Global Routing Incident Severity * Low (No / negligible impact) * Medium (One or a few ASes are unavailable) * High (Many ASes in a region are unavailable) * Very High (Global Internet routing disruptions) Please rate the incident severity (Low to Very High) in the following three areas. Please explain why. (a) Confidentiality (Impact level of incidents such as data leaks) (b) Integrity (Impact level of incidents such as hack attempts) (c) Availability (Impact level of service outage incidents, up to 22 hours per quarter) (2) IP addresses and AS Numbers Incident Severity * Low (No / negligible impact) * Medium (Local disruptions (registration information not being available for some entities)) * High (Regional disruptions (registration information not being available for the RIPE NCC region)) * Very High (Global disruptions (lack of registration information for all AS Numbers and IP addresses)) Please rate the incident severity (Low to Very High) in the following three areas. Please explain why. (a) Confidentiality (Impact level of incidents such as data leaks) (b) Integrity (Impact level of incidents such as hack attempts) (c) Availability (Impact level of service outage incidents, up to 22 hours per quarter) (3) Global DNS Incident Severity * Low (No / negligible impact) * Medium (Local disruptions) * High (Regional disruptions) * Very High (Global disruptions) Please rate the incident severity (Low to Very High) in the following three areas. Please explain why. (a) Confidentiality (Impact level of incidents such as data leaks) (b) Integrity (Impact level of incidents such as hack attempts) (c) Availability (Impact level of service outage incidents, up to 22 hours per quarter)

2 2

Whois Release 1.104
by Edward Shryane 10 Oct '22

10 Oct '22

Dear Colleagues, RIPE Database release 1.104 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment. We plan to deploy to production on Monday 10th October. This release includes the following main changes: * Allow Grouping (-G) flag in Whois Search API (#1077) * cidr0 notation for rdap response (#1068) * Remove whois tags (#1059) * Added text/plain to Search and REST APIs (#1054) * Add comment not NOOP (#1052) * Do not allow comments in managed attributes (#1045) * Use documentation prefix 192.0.2.0/24 (#1044) * Organisation country: is modifiable for end-user orgs without RIPE NCC resources (#1041) * Do not return deleted versions (#1015) * Redirect empty requests to syncupdates help (#1011) The release notes are on the website: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/release-notes/ripe-database-rel… More information on the Release Candidate environment can be found on our website: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/release-notes/rc-release-candid… Please let us know if you find any issues with this release in the RC environment. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 1

RIPE Database Quarterly Planning Q4 2022
by Edward Shryane 26 Sep '22

26 Sep '22

Dear colleagues, We have published our quarterly plans for Q4 2022 for the RIPE Database: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/quarterly-planning In this quarter, we will start implementing the RDAP cidr0 and NRO profiles. We are also continuing work on the Service Criticality framework and on the RIPE database documentation. We hope that by providing these plans, we can better inform the community of the ongoing developments on the RIPE Database and get feedback on our work. If you have comments or questions around this, we hope you'll let us know on the list or you can always contact the DB team directly at ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net . Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 0

NWI-13 Geofeed Legal Analysis
by Maria Stafyla 26 Sep '22

26 Sep '22

Dear colleagues, Following the legal update we provided on NWI-13: Geofeed at the DB WG session at RIPE 84, here is our analysis in case further discussion on this topic is needed. Executive Summary: -The RIPE Database is meant to contain specific information for its documented purposes. -Information inserted in the geofeed attribute could in some cases qualify as personal data. -The current purposes could explain geolocation information to be inserted only for ‘scientific research into network operations and topology’. -This purpose does not justify the processing of personal data; therefore restrictions had to be put in place to avoid the processing of unnecessary personal data. -The restrictions are now implemented based on the status of the registration. -If the purposes of the RIPE Database have changed in the meantime, this should be established via the community processes and documented. In that case we will re-evaluate the situation and the need for restrictions. Until then, the restrictions remain necessary. Legal Analysis: The RIPE Database is meant to contain specific information for the purposes that are defined in the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. In terms of the _personal data_ inserted in there, the purpose that justifies its publication is to facilitate the coordination of network operations for the smooth and uninterrupted operation of Internet; this purpose explains why contact details of resource holders or their appointed contact persons are required. Before any new type of personal data is permitted to be inserted in the RIPE Database, we must evaluate if their processing is required for the purposes already defined and their processing can be considered in line with the basic personal data processing principles. Although it is the responsibility of the party inserting personal data to ensure that they have the appropriate legal grounds before doing so, the RIPE NCC has also shared responsibilities with regards to the personal data in the RIPE Database. This is because the RIPE NCC is the party that is making the RIPE Database available and implements the instructions given by the RIPE community. As mentioned in the Legal Review Impact Analysis, if the geofeed attribute is inserted for registrations of assignments that are reasonably assumed to be related to one individual user, then the attribute will be considered as containing personal data and GDPR will apply. This is why we have proposed to implement restrictions. These restrictions are essential to avoid any processing of personal data that is not required or necessary for the *currently defined* purposes of the RIPE Database and to limit the RIPE NCC's liability as a party with shared responsibilities in relation to the personal data inserted in the RIPE Database. Regarding the _(non-personal) data _inserted in the RIPE Database, it is also paramount that only data that is needed for the defined purposes of the RIPE Database is inserted. According to the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions, introducing the geofeed attribute (with restrictions) would be considered in line and acceptable to be used only for scientific research into network operations and topology (see Art. 3). We also understand that the purposes the RIPE Database must fulfil are not static but evolve over time. The RIPE Database Requirements Task Force has recently concluded its work and, with regard to geolocation, it has established that, although there is an active user group for geolocation data, geolocation itself is not an objective that the RIPE Database should fulfil. If the community's interests have changed since then and it is now agreed that geolocation is one of the purposes the RIPE Database must fulfil, this should be decided via the community's processes and reflected in the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. In line with the data management principles proposed by the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force, it would be prudent to approach this issue holistically, taking into account that other geolocation information is already provided in the RIPE Database (i.e. geoloc, country code attributes in ORG and resource objects). On the basis of a new purpose for the geolocation information, we could then reassess the situation to understand whether the restrictions on the geofeed attribute are still necessary or whether it is justified to process personal data for this purpose. Kind regards, Maria Stafyla Senior Legal Counsel RIPE NCC

16 44