Purely as a point of information, Randy also asked for APNIC to consider this field, and it has been put into the Opportunity process inside Registry Product, of which I am the manager. I am following this discussion. My primary concerns are the effects on tools, of a new type:value assertion appearing in the RPSL. If this is not a high barrier to deployment it has consequences beyond geofeed: marker for us. Separately, I think in order to ensure RDAP and Whois stay in alignment, some thought needs to be given to how this value projects into JSON in RDAP records. And, lastly, I would like this field, because it would relieve some of the tension around the country: marker in inetnum and inet6num and the economycode field of the delegated statistics file, which is by definition about the entity, not the addresses. Widespread acceptance of a geofeed mark would allow registry to return to a normative use of the economycode for the domicile of the holding entity. cheers -George On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:28 AM Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear DB-WG,
Some colleagues are working to address the never-ending-story of 'where the heck are IPs geographically?'. This problem space has been brought up numerous times in the Database Working Group, but we never managed to solve it. As with all compsci problems adding a layer of indirection can help ;-)
This current draft suggests overloading the RPSL 'remarks:' field with a structured attribute value, however I suspect we would do ourselves a disservice to overload a 'remarks:' field.
Instead it would be better to add a 'geofeed:' attribute to the RPSL inetnum/inetnum6 class dictionary, which as value contains a URL with http or https scheme.
The draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-opsawg-finding-geofeeds
The value of the attribute could be validated using something like "org.apache.commons.validator.UrlValidator", the attribute would look like this, only valid in the inetnum/inet6num:
"geofeed: [optional] [single] [ ]"
Example object:
inetnum: 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255 netname: EXAMPLE country: NL geofeed: https://example.com/geofeed.csv ... snip ... source: RIPE
What do others think?
Kind regards,
Job
ps. In IRRd v4.2 support for the 'geofeed:' attribute will be added https://github.com/irrdnet/irrd/issues/396