Winfried Haug wrote:
Hello,
Good evening,
we want you again to discuss the problem with the route-objects which need approval from the first owner of a route-object rather than from the owner of the inet object itself.
fair enough.
As you didnt repsond to personal emails concerning this topic we want you to address this again.
As the Chair of a Working Group does not take any decisions, there is no point in opening private discussions. A WG Chair's task is nothing more and nothing less than managing (rather: trying to manage - we all are human) the discussion process. The decisions are taken after a thorough discussion on the mailing list and/or during the face-to-face meetings by consensus - or not - or by way of the more formal PDP (Policy Development Process) for the potentially more contentious or fundamental issues.
There are many good reasons, that a owner of the ip block should have the possibility to remove unwanted route objects or at least grant new routes objects to be added to the ripe database.
I see NO reason why a a maintainer of the first route object should have more power than the real owner of the ip space.
The might be situations where you need 2 route objects (changing upstream). If the owner of the first route object doensnt respond or is unwilling to help the ip-owner and/or the new isp you are lost.
We dont think that sending a fax to ripe will be a good solution for this design error in the ripe database.
Do you intend to present your issue during the next DB-WG Meeting? If yes, how many time should I allocate to this topic on the draft agenda? Who would be the presenter? In case you think a more formal process is appropriate then this is the reference for more information: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/index.html In any case, I think the Routing-WG and/or the Address Policy WG would be the first choice for you to start this particular dicussion - because the DB-WG is "just" a group to provide the tools and mechanisms, and not the policies and/or the semantics, or the protection guidelines, for the registry data. In any case, I guess there will be some RFC/s that need/s changing if and when we can reach consensus in the community along the lines of your thoughts.
Winfried Haug
Headlight Housing Factory | Rechenzentrum: Azenbergstrasse 35 | Neue Bruecke 8 D-70174 Stuttgart | D-70173 Stuttgart Fon: +49 711 2840 0 | e-mail: wh@headlight.de Fax: +49 711 2840 999 | http://www.headlight.de
With the best regards, looking foreward to your active contribution, WW144 _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~