Call for agenda items, DB-WG Meeting during RIPE53, Amsterdam
Dear DB-WG folks, the RIPE NCC has asked us to submit the draft agendas for the WGs within the next few days. Thus, please submit (to the WG list or to me personally) your item requests or suggest topics for discussion to be included in the draft agenda. The DataBase-WG meeting is scheduled for Friday morning, October 6, 2006. The overall RIPE meeting outline is available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/meeting-plan.html The list of plenary presentations scheduled may become available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/ (empty right now) See you in Amsterdam, Wilfried.
Hello, 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. As you didnt repsond to personal emails concerning this topic we want you to address this again. 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. 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
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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Copying routing-wg. Brief background; this is about relaxing the restrictions on creating/modifying route: objects in the RIPE database, as previously discussed in the threads starting at the following messages: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/db-wg/2006/msg00053.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/db-wg/2006/msg00017.html ]
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.
Right. This came up before the Istanbul meeting, then during the meeting it was mentioned again (in the routing WG), and Andrei talked briefly about the current scheme. However, there was pretty much no feedback from the floor or via jabber, so it was decided that it would be moved to the mailing list. There was a brief discussion on the list, but that fizzled out too. If there is enough desire to do this, then somebody needs to write a document. I guess that initially it could be a RIPE document, but eventually it should aim to update RFC2725 section 9.9, so maybe it would be good to have it as close to internet-draft format as possible from the start. I'm open to having another slot during the Amsterdam meeting if there is interest. As I see it, that could be one of two things: 1) A quick call for help in editing the document to create a proposal. 2) If we've got a draft of a proposal by then, discussion on it. Either way, we need to have someone willing to talk and an idea of how long you want to talk for! :-) All the best, Rob
Hello Winfried! It is because you always can use YOUR mntner in route objects associated with your inetnums and avoid such kind of troubles. Winfried Haug wrote:
Hello,
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.
As you didnt repsond to personal emails concerning this topic we want you to address this again. 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.
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
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
participants (4)
-
Max Tulyev -
Rob Evans -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet -
Winfried Haug