Deprecation of whitepages
Colleagues Way back in 2008 it was suggested that the RIPE Database could be used for linking people well known within the network operating industry. The concept of 'whitepages' was introduced. This was an ORGANISATION object (ORG-PAGE1-RIPE) with 'org-type: WHITEPAGES' that could be referenced by PERSON objects to override the automatic deletion of PERSON objects not referenced by any resource object. In today's privacy world, it is a bad idea to use the RIPE Database as a phone book. Currently there are only 4 people whose PERSON object references this ORGANISATION object. (There are also 5 moderators referenced in the ORGANISATION object who have probably long since forgotten they had anything to do with it :) ) I think we should now deprecate this concept. LinkedIn is much more suited to keeping in touch with networking people. Comments appreciated... cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
Dear Working Group, I agree with the deprecation of the "white pages" in the RIPE DB. In fact, I think they never worked as planned/anticipated. The GDPR related considerations make their use even more difficult. Best regards, Janos 2021. 01. 28. 11:53 keltezéssel, denis walker via db-wg írta:
Colleagues
Way back in 2008 it was suggested that the RIPE Database could be used for linking people well known within the network operating industry. The concept of 'whitepages' was introduced. This was an ORGANISATION object (ORG-PAGE1-RIPE) with 'org-type: WHITEPAGES' that could be referenced by PERSON objects to override the automatic deletion of PERSON objects not referenced by any resource object. In today's privacy world, it is a bad idea to use the RIPE Database as a phone book. Currently there are only 4 people whose PERSON object references this ORGANISATION object. (There are also 5 moderators referenced in the ORGANISATION object who have probably long since forgotten they had anything to do with it :) )
I think we should now deprecate this concept. LinkedIn is much more suited to keeping in touch with networking people. Comments appreciated...
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
Hi I support the notion. RIR DB should maintain as operation as for operational purpose only. denis walker via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net>于2021年1月28日 周四下午6:54写道：
Colleagues
Way back in 2008 it was suggested that the RIPE Database could be used for linking people well known within the network operating industry. The concept of 'whitepages' was introduced. This was an ORGANISATION object (ORG-PAGE1-RIPE) with 'org-type: WHITEPAGES' that could be referenced by PERSON objects to override the automatic deletion of PERSON objects not referenced by any resource object. In today's privacy world, it is a bad idea to use the RIPE Database as a phone book. Currently there are only 4 people whose PERSON object references this ORGANISATION object. (There are also 5 moderators referenced in the ORGANISATION object who have probably long since forgotten they had anything to do with it :) )
I think we should now deprecate this concept. LinkedIn is much more suited to keeping in touch with networking people. Comments appreciated...
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi, I agree with this cleanup. Kind regards Scott Donald ________________________________ From: db-wg <db-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of denis walker via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> Sent: 28 January 2021 10:53 To: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [db-wg] Deprecation of whitepages Colleagues Way back in 2008 it was suggested that the RIPE Database could be used for linking people well known within the network operating industry. The concept of 'whitepages' was introduced. This was an ORGANISATION object (ORG-PAGE1-RIPE) with 'org-type: WHITEPAGES' that could be referenced by PERSON objects to override the automatic deletion of PERSON objects not referenced by any resource object. In today's privacy world, it is a bad idea to use the RIPE Database as a phone book. Currently there are only 4 people whose PERSON object references this ORGANISATION object. (There are also 5 moderators referenced in the ORGANISATION object who have probably long since forgotten they had anything to do with it :) ) I think we should now deprecate this concept. LinkedIn is much more suited to keeping in touch with networking people. Comments appreciated... cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:53:53AM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote: Dear Denis, All,
I think we should now deprecate this concept. LinkedIn is much more suited to keeping in touch with networking people. Comments appreciated...
I support this cleanup. Best regards, -- Piotr Strzyżewski
Hi, On 28/01/2021 13:53, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
I think we should now deprecate this concept. LinkedIn is much more suited to keeping in touch with networking people. Comments appreciated...
I support the cleanup. Frank PS: what's LinkedIn ? ;-)
If the whitepages are removed, what is the recommended path for maintiners of Atlas nodes? The thread at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-atlas/2016-November/003091.html suggests that a person/role created in the DB which are used to maintain atlas nodes will be locked and then removed unless it either owns resources, or is in the whitepages. --Will
Hi Will I wasn't aware that the RIPE Atlas system/service had any reliance on objects in the RIPE Database. Maybe Robert can elaborate more on this? There are only 4 PERSON objects in the RIPE Database that reference the Whitepages ORGANISATION object. None of these make any reference in remarks to RIPE Atlas. So clearly no one is using the old Whitepages service for RIPE Atlas. There is 1 ROLE object in the database that does refer to RIPE Atlas, CAAO-RIPE. This object was created in 2014 and was recently modified. But it is not referenced anywhere...so it should have been automatically deleted after 90 days. Maybe Ed can look at why this object still exists in the database? cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 16:45, Will Scott via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
If the whitepages are removed, what is the recommended path for maintiners of Atlas nodes?
The thread at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-atlas/2016-November/003091.html suggests that a person/role created in the DB which are used to maintain atlas nodes will be locked and then removed unless it either owns resources, or is in the whitepages.
--Will
Hi Denis,
On 28 Jan 2021, at 19:37, denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Will
I wasn't aware that the RIPE Atlas system/service had any reliance on objects in the RIPE Database. Maybe Robert can elaborate more on this?
There are only 4 PERSON objects in the RIPE Database that reference the Whitepages ORGANISATION object. None of these make any reference in remarks to RIPE Atlas. So clearly no one is using the old Whitepages service for RIPE Atlas. There is 1 ROLE object in the database that does refer to RIPE Atlas, CAAO-RIPE. This object was created in 2014 and was recently modified. But it is not referenced anywhere...so it should have been automatically deleted after 90 days. Maybe Ed can look at why this object still exists in the database?
There is an exclude list for the cleanup unreferenced objects job, and CAAO-RIPE is excluded, so it will never be deleted. The DB team maintains this list and will exclude an object on request. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
Can I request that EON11-RIPE be added to the same list? That satisfies my immediate goal as much as the white page, and the visibility of this mailing list thread should be equivalent to that of the previous one in helping the next person who comes along and runs into the edge case of wanting to protect an unreferenced atlas role. Thanks, --Will On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 08:32:55PM +0100, Edward Shryane wrote:
Hi Denis,
On 28 Jan 2021, at 19:37, denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Will
I wasn't aware that the RIPE Atlas system/service had any reliance on objects in the RIPE Database. Maybe Robert can elaborate more on this?
There are only 4 PERSON objects in the RIPE Database that reference the Whitepages ORGANISATION object. None of these make any reference in remarks to RIPE Atlas. So clearly no one is using the old Whitepages service for RIPE Atlas. There is 1 ROLE object in the database that does refer to RIPE Atlas, CAAO-RIPE. This object was created in 2014 and was recently modified. But it is not referenced anywhere...so it should have been automatically deleted after 90 days. Maybe Ed can look at why this object still exists in the database?
There is an exclude list for the cleanup unreferenced objects job, and CAAO-RIPE is excluded, so it will never be deleted.
The DB team maintains this list and will exclude an object on request.
Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
Hi Will, Denis,
On 28 Jan 2021, at 20:30, Will Scott <willscott@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I request that EON11-RIPE be added to the same list?
I have added EON11-RIPE to the exclude list for the cleanup unreferenced object job.
That satisfies my immediate goal as much as the white page, and the visibility of this mailing list thread should be equivalent to that of the previous one in helping the next person who comes along and runs into the edge case of wanting to protect an unreferenced atlas role.
Thanks, --Will
Denis, given there is still a need to be excluded from the cleanup, should this be done by the whitepages mechanism and/or the (RIPE NCC managed) exclude list? Regards Ed
Hi Ed Well maybe we should start by discussing this exclusion list. It's the first I have heard of it. If such a list exists (as it does) then the reasons for exclusion should be defined. Maybe exclusion is also the wrong term, protected is perhaps more appropriate. Who decides if an object should be protected should also be defined and there should be some transparent indication in the database that an object is protected. The whitepages mechanism was difficult to manage and relied on community moderators to decide if someone should be included. So maybe we should follow the NWI process and define the problem statement, being the reasons why some objects need protecting. Then we can decide how best to manage this. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 21:04, Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Will, Denis,
On 28 Jan 2021, at 20:30, Will Scott <willscott@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I request that EON11-RIPE be added to the same list?
I have added EON11-RIPE to the exclude list for the cleanup unreferenced object job.
That satisfies my immediate goal as much as the white page, and the visibility of this mailing list thread should be equivalent to that of the previous one in helping the next person who comes along and runs into the edge case of wanting to protect an unreferenced atlas role.
Thanks, --Will
Denis, given there is still a need to be excluded from the cleanup, should this be done by the whitepages mechanism and/or the (RIPE NCC managed) exclude list?
Regards Ed
While the whitepages org type system might be a bit odd, I see the need for some way to explicitly say "I don't want my handle to be cleaned up", for Atlas and anything else that might rely upon it. If there is a current system for this that is not whitepages (as Ed seems to suggest), I would suggest that maybe we find out why it is needed and how best to address it. I would like to request that the chairs create an NWI for the purpose of seeing what the best solution would be to solve these cases and potentially clean up the other solutions. -Cynthia On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 9:44 PM denis walker via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Ed
Well maybe we should start by discussing this exclusion list. It's the first I have heard of it.
If such a list exists (as it does) then the reasons for exclusion should be defined. Maybe exclusion is also the wrong term, protected is perhaps more appropriate. Who decides if an object should be protected should also be defined and there should be some transparent indication in the database that an object is protected.
The whitepages mechanism was difficult to manage and relied on community moderators to decide if someone should be included. So maybe we should follow the NWI process and define the problem statement, being the reasons why some objects need protecting. Then we can decide how best to manage this.
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 21:04, Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Will, Denis,
On 28 Jan 2021, at 20:30, Will Scott <willscott@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I request that EON11-RIPE be added to the same list?
I have added EON11-RIPE to the exclude list for the cleanup unreferenced
object job.
That satisfies my immediate goal as much as the white page, and the visibility of this mailing list thread should be equivalent to that of the previous one in helping the next person who comes along and runs into the edge case of wanting to protect an unreferenced atlas role.
Thanks, --Will
Denis, given there is still a need to be excluded from the cleanup,
should this be done by the whitepages mechanism and/or the (RIPE NCC managed) exclude list?
Regards Ed
There is an exclude list for the cleanup unreferenced objects job, and CAAO-RIPE is excluded, so it will never be deleted.
The DB team maintains this list and will exclude an object on request.
please exclude all objects i might wish to look up. in https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-004, which has been superceded of course, rob and daniel said it well, Task Force 2: Network Management and Operations European IP traffic is carried by a multitude of different infrastructures. The resulting pan-European IP infrastructure needs to be well managed in coordination with the managements of the underlying infrastructures. Currently this works well enough. With the expected growth a generally agreed management coordination is needed. This task force should develop a managament framework and collect the necessary management information. Coordination with all other task forces activities is needed. Task 2-1: Create and maintain a (`whois') database about RIPE IP networks and their management information. Term: Ongoing, reports monthly, first Dec89 Task 2-2: Create an infrastructure of operational contacts via various means of communication. Term: Jan90 Task 2-3: Create a procedure for notification of security relevant problems assuming that the networks itself are unusable. Term: Jan90 randy
Hello, On 2021-01-28 19:37, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
Hi Will
I wasn't aware that the RIPE Atlas system/service had any reliance on objects in the RIPE Database. Maybe Robert can elaborate more on this?
Anchor hosts can, if they wish to do so, add their contact details (ie. a RIPE DB role) as a reference to their anchor; this is displayed on the RIPE Atlas UI. This is convenience feature only, no operation depends on it. The DB side is probably unaware of this as it's just an incoming link. This behaviour of course can be changed and we appreciate any community guidance on it. Regards, Robert
Hi Robert, Thank you for the information, is it just anchor hosts or also probe hosts out of interest? Personally I don't think this is an issue as long as the DB team has something to document all other use cases of the handles within the other parts of the RIPE NCC or RIPE. I think not needing to provide the role data in multiple places is a good thing as it helps with reducing the amount of places the data would need to be updated in. (and as such I assume would help make the data more up to date) Denis, I think an NWI would be really good for this as it could help to come up with the best solution. -Cynthia On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:49 AM Robert Kisteleki via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hello,
On 2021-01-28 19:37, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
Hi Will
I wasn't aware that the RIPE Atlas system/service had any reliance on objects in the RIPE Database. Maybe Robert can elaborate more on this?
Anchor hosts can, if they wish to do so, add their contact details (ie. a RIPE DB role) as a reference to their anchor; this is displayed on the RIPE Atlas UI. This is convenience feature only, no operation depends on it. The DB side is probably unaware of this as it's just an incoming link.
This behaviour of course can be changed and we appreciate any community guidance on it.
Regards, Robert
Hi,
Thank you for the information, is it just anchor hosts or also probe hosts out of interest?
This was a feature request from anchor hosts back in the day. My understanding is that in general it's more applicable to anchors than probes. That said, if there's interest in adding this possibility to probes too then we can certainly do it -- depending on the outcome of the "should we do this in the first place" discussion, of course. Cheers, Robert
participants (11)
-
Cynthia Revström -
denis walker -
Edward Shryane -
Frank Habicht -
Janos Zsako -
Lu Heng -
Piotr Strzyzewski -
Randy Bush -
Robert Kisteleki -
scott donald -
Will Scott