- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Personal Data in the RIPE Database - next step
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 11 Mar '19

11 Mar '19

Colleagues All the responses made indicated a preference for the lightweight option to move forward. Elvis Velea and James Kennedy indicated that they are interested in working with myself on a policy proposal. We will make a start on this and bring some issues to the community as we go along that need a wider viewpoint. cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG

1 0

as-set object(s) to declare AS value frameworks
by Niels ten Oever 08 Mar '19

08 Mar '19

Dear Database WG, Recent public debates on the ethics and social implications of digital technology, as well as the feedback I received on my presentation at RIPE77 [0], have stimulated me to think more about how value frameworks can inform routing decisions. Based on the analysis of several discussions in the IETF community [1], the ICANN community [2], and the recent book by David Clarke [3], I thought a voluntary declaration of values might be relevant for discussion in the RIPE community. A way of doing this could be the discussion of the introduction of two AS-SET objects in the routing database. This could enable Autonomous Systems to declare the values frameworks they adhere to. An example of possible objects would be: [object0] as-set: AS-GDPR remarks: members of this set declare to be compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union mbrs-by-ref: ANY [/object0] [object1] as-set: AS-UNGP remarks: members of this set declare to have adopted and implemented the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights mbrs-by-ref: ANY [/object1] Members of these sets would declare to live up to these values. Based on these sets, other AS-es could, for example, choose to preferentially route via AS-es that are member of (one of) these sets. These value frameworks (the GDPR and UNGPs) were chosen because these are widely known and adopted standards in our community [4], so the understanding of these values should not be subject to a lot of interpretation and discussion. Do you think this would be a reasonable approach, and if so, would you consider becoming a member of (one of) these sets? Or do you think there are better ways to achieve this? Looking forward to hear what you think. Best, Niels PS I posted a similar e-mail to the routing WG to discuss the routing implications of this proposal. Please accept my apologies if this is considered as cross-posting, but I thought both aspects of this proposal might be interesting to discuss. [0] https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2113/ [1] For instance in the discussions on RFC1958, RFC3935, RFC6873, RFC7258, and RFC8280 [2] Most notably resulting in the addition of a commitment to human rights during the IANA transition, but of course as well during the extensive WHOIS discussions [3] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/designing-internet [4] For instance SIDN has engaged in a Human Rights Impact Assessment https://www.sidn.nl/a/over-sidn/mensenrechten-daar-voldoen-we-toch-aan , and Cisco, Ericsson, Google, NTT, Orange, AT&T, IBM and many others have adopted the UNGPs - Cisco https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/cisco-systems-0?keywords=cisco - Ericsson https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/ericsson-0?keywords=ericsson#a117755 - Google https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/google-0?keywords=google - NTT https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/nippon-telegraph-and-telephone-ntt-… http://www.ntt.co.jp/csr_e/report.html - Orange https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/orange-0 - AT&T https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/att-0?keywords=AT&T - IBM https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/ibm-0?keywords=IBM -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

2 1

personal data...next step?
by Jetten Raymond 04 Mar '19

04 Mar '19

Hi, I would prefer the lightweight option as well. Rgds, Ray

2 1

Whois Release 1.93
by Edward Shryane 04 Mar '19

04 Mar '19

Dear Working Group, RIPE Database release 1.93 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment. If no issues are found, we plan to deploy to production on Monday, 25th February. Release 1.93 includes the following main changes: * Improved email address validation. * Do not allow expired public keys to authenticate updates, and expire signed messages after 1 hour. * Validate bogon space in route(6) creation. * Warn the user if the resource abuse-c is identical to the organisation's abuse-c. * Allow use of elliptic curve algorithm in key-cert objects (updated cryptography library). * Fixed NRTM client parsing end of stream comment in keepalive mode. * Filter out comment in autocomplete API (used by the DB web application) * Only validate reserved words in primary key on create, so existing objects can be updated. * Database schema changes for 2017-02 Abuse-c Validation implementation. The complete list of changes in this release can be found in GitHub: https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/master/changes.txt The release notes will also be published shortly: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/release-notes 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 2

Whois Release 1.92.6.2
by Edward Shryane 01 Mar '19

01 Mar '19

Dear Working Group, RIPE Database release 1.92.6.2 was deployed to production yesterday evening, with a single change from the previous 1.92.6 release. Following the Database downtime on 22 February, this change restores the Full Text Search functionality. More information on the downtime can be found on our website: https://www.ripe.net/support/service-announcements/ripe-database-full-text-… We apologise for any inconvenience caused by this incident. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 0

No more personal objects in the RIPE Database?
by Hans Petter Holen 22 Feb '19

22 Feb '19

Following Denis’s presentation at the last database working group meeting and Elvis’s messages to the RIPE NCC members list I think it is time to have a new discussion on the need for personal objects in the RIPE Database. https://ripe77.ripe.net/presentations/63-PERSONobjects.pdf https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2298/ https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2019-February/00329… This is not questioning previous legal assessments of GDPR compliance, but taking a step back and looking at how would we do this if we were to design the RIPE Database with today's privacy requirements in mind. The ccTLD for .NO, Norid made an update to their service last year to completely remove person objects from their database. https://www.norid.no/uploads/2017/12/Datamodell-revidert-en-v2.pdf In terms of the RIPE Database, that would mean that resources would refer to organisational objects and roles, not to personal objects. Perhaps Denis and/or Elvis would propose a policy change in this respect? Hans Petter

3 3

Re: [db-wg] Idea: magic mntner for all LIR contacts
by Tore Anderson 19 Feb '19

19 Feb '19

* Aleksi Suhonen > On 03/12/2018 10:35, Tore Anderson via db-wg wrote: >> So I was thinking: is this mandatory and error-prone duplication of work >> really necessary? Wouldn't it be possible to instead have some kind of >> magic mntner object that is is kept automatically up to date with «auth: >> SSO»-attributes for all the LIR user accounts? > > I second this idea. Perhaps this should be a different object type tho, to make it clear that editing the magic maintainer by hand will have undesired results. It should be interchangeable with normal maintainers of course, a bit like person objects and role objects are. Or maybe just expand the existing SSO attribute to accept a RegID. For example: mntner: FOOBAR-MNT auth: SSO no.foobar Which would allow maintenance by all registered user accounts in LIR no.foobar (except for accounts with the «billing» privilege level). > Do you want someone to co-author a PDP on this? I was hoping that a PDP wouldn't be necessary, to be honest. That is, if the NCC thought it was a good idea they could just go ahead and implement it. (If I recall correctly, the «auth: SSO» functionality was added without there being a community policy demanding it.) That said, if you want to write a proposal to this effect I'd be happy to put my name on it. Tore

9 44

Proposal for restricting authentication concerning use of revoked and expired GPG ID's in key-cert objects
by Christoffer Hansen (Lists) 11 Feb '19

11 Feb '19

Dear DB WG, It came to my attention the RIPE NCC Database does not do validation of signed updates. (Other than checking the key is allowed to sign updates for object(s) in question) I got the understanding from writing to DB-WG-Chairs this was a decision made years back. I think is less than optimal from a security perspective an signed update (with GPG and/or X509 certs) is not validated against (1) when the update was signed (E.g. signing was done 10 minutes ago) and (2) that the expiration date for the keys are not validated. Usually I will expect if I revoke a GPG-key|X509-cert. It cannot be used any more. But the RIPE NCC Database does still allow this currently. This is relevant in the case I ever lose a private GPG-key|X509-cert to less than friendly 3rd-parties. And the lost private GPG-key|X509-cert is the one used for signing updates to the database. What I have in mind. Is the RIPE NCC Database begins verifying validity (not revoked and/or expired) of GPG-key|X509-cert used to sign updates with. Christoffer

7 10

Certain sponsored? ASNs without sponsoring-org
by Cynthia Revström 08 Jan '19

08 Jan '19

So I have now run across several ASNs in which the org is of type "OTHER" yet there is no sponsoring-org, could this please be clarified? Example ASNs: AS200358, AS204842 If it is like I think it is, it must be that they have lost their sponsors but if that is the case, I would like to see a remark that is an "RIPE NCC managed value" saying something like "This ASN does not have any sponsor since YYYY-MM-DD". I am not entirely sure on this but something to clarify what is going on. Kind regards, Cynthia Revström

5 9

usage of LIR-PARTITIONED status
by Marco Schmidt 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

Hello Alex, Allow me to provide some additional clarification. As Gert has already correctly explained, the status LIR-PARTITIONED is used to partition allocations. For inetnum objects with the status ALLOCATED PA, you can create more specific objects with the status LIR-PARTITIONED PA. The same applies for PI. However there are no inetnums with the status ALLOCATED PI in the RIPE Database, and such ranges are no longer provided by the RIPE NCC. Recently, consensus was reached on a policy change to remove the status ALLOCATED PI and LIR-PARTITIONED PI from the RIPE IPv4 Policy document. https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-03 Following this policy change, we will also remove this status from the RIPE Database code and documentation shortly. I hope this clarifies things. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0