1st draft: proposed agenda - DB-WG at RIPE 23, Amsterdam
This is the 1st proposal of a draft agenda for the Database-WG at RIPE 23 in Amsterdam. **Message to the NCC WG scheduling department: If at all possible - please have the DB-WG meeting slot(s) scheduled near the end of the WG stream(s). Thank you! I'd propose to have 2 sessions, - one for the more formal items (A. - D., Y., Z.) and - another one for the more general aspects (E., F., G.). The "general aspects" session should probably precede the formal one. As always, additons, comments, etc. welcome! Apologies if I missed something obvious... See you, Wilfried. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Draft Agenda: Database-WG, RIPE 23, Amsterdam, NL ------------------------------------------------------ A. Administrative stuff - volunteering of the scribe - WG-agenda bashing B. DB-SW report - general status report - "realtime" shadowing - hierarchical authorisation for creation and update - backlink implementation - automatic handle assignment C. DB-Objects and attributes - referral mechanisms and distribution of authoritative data - stored/processed attribute (A: 19.12) - do we want/need a registry object? - mcast extensions for inet-rtr:, peer: attribute (A: ) - ROLE/NOC object, handling of lookup recursion - URL attribute? (credits for the idea to Erik-Jan Bos) D. Copyright for the RIPE-DB proposal to have every whois query return % data is copyrighted, and a pointer to the (C) definition of comment and/or meta-characters (%, #, *) ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E. Databases and registries interoperation brainstorming about needs, methods,... the 192 review project by B.Manning quality control of data, duplicates alert, fuzzy matching... uniqueness of names across databases (AS macros, route) references to data in a different database common update mechanism for "all" databases (multiple source: values? auto forwarding?) proposal for a coordinated development project? F. User Interfaces Tools online documentation G. Authentication and security ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Y. Input from other WGs Z. AOB Draft 1.0, 23-JAN-1996 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before too much work occurs here (and has to be financed), I would like to see a report on if there actually is continued interest in supporting a common database infrastructure in the first place. And if yes, what has to be done to satisfy the requirements of the organisations that have stopped using the Ripe database. Background: SWITCH has stopped updating the Ripe database with domains and various other NICs have obviously indicated that will not be doing this anymore either. I do not wish to speculate on the motives, however it -is- clear that this undesirable for the community as a whole. The question is: can this be fixed and what has to be done to accomadte whatever special features these registries need? -- ===== ______ __ __ == Simon Poole ==== / __/ / / /__ ___ / /_ === poole@eunet.ch === / _// /_/ / _ \/ -_) __/ ==== EUnet AG, Zweierstr. 35, CH-8004 Zuerich == /___/\____/_//_/\__/\__/ ===== Tel: +41 1 291 45 80 Fax: +41 1 291 46 42
participants (2)
-
poole@eunet.ch
-
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet