- ncc-services-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Call for Agenda Items RIPE77 - RIPE NCC Services WG
by Bijal Sanghani 11 Sep '18

11 Sep '18

Dear NCC-Services WG, RIPE77 is a few months away and we’re putting together the agenda for the working group. If you would like to suggest a topic for discussion or have a presentation you have or would like to see presented please get in touch with the working group chairs at ncc-services-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net <mailto:ncc-services-wg-chairs@ripe.net>. Remember, this is your opportunity to let the RIPE NCC know what you want from them :) Best regards, RIPE NCC Services WG Chairs

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] #107164 - Re: [usersnap][ripe-database] - Syncupdates during "domain" object creation or update check are caching DN[...]
by Daniel Suchy 02 Aug '18

02 Aug '18

Hello, that doesn't make any sense. In reported case, zone delegation was just missing on authoritative nameserver. After issue was fixed at DNS server, *your* server was still caching *negative* answer and refusing object creation (even zone was created on our nameserver). There's no reason to simulate "client behavior" by caching some results locally (and delay object creation just due to that). Current behavior leads to false-positives during object creation/update and causes misleading error messages for web-updates end-users. DNS servers should be queried always directly while checks are performed during object creation/update to provide accurate (real) data. >From my perspective this is a bug in current implementation of DNS-related checks at NCC side. With regards, Daniel On 08/02/2018 02:16 PM, RIPE NCC Support wrote: > ##- Please type your reply above this line -## > > Ticket (107164) has been updated. To add additional comments, reply to > this email. > > *Anand Buddhdev* (RIPE NCC Support) > > Aug 2, 14:16 CEST > > Hi Daniel, > > Some checks query DNS servers directly, but others use a caching > resolver (especially checks that resolve name server names to IP > addresses). This simulates the behaviour of a client more accurately. > There is no way around this, except to wait for the TTL of the old > records to expire, and then you can try to create or update your domain > object again. > > Regards, > Anand Buddhdev > RIPE NCC > > This email is a service from RIPE NCC Support. > [3QKYYW-RE09]

2 1

RIPE76 Draft NCC Services WG Minutes
by Bijal Sanghani 24 Jul '18

24 Jul '18

Dear All, The draft minutes from the NCC Services WG at RIPE76 are now available online at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services/minutes/ripe-ncc-services… Please feel free to send comments to either myself, Kurtis or the mailing list. Kind regards, Bijal Sanghani NCC Services WG Co-chair

1 0

Implementation plan and dates for NWI5 - Out-of-region ROUTE(6) objects and removal of ASN authorisation for ROUTE(6) object creation.
by Nathalie Trenaman 19 Jul '18

19 Jul '18

Dear colleagues, In February 2018, the RIPE Database Working Group reached consensus on NWI-5 - creating out of region ROUTE(6) objects in the RIPE Database. We will soon be making changes to the way out-of-region objects are handled in the RIPE Database. It's important that database users are aware of these changes and what they mean: 1. The RIPE Routing Registry will no longer support the creation of out-of-region ROUTE(6) and AUT-NUM objects 2. Existing out-of-region objects will have their "source:” attribute changed to "RIPE-NONAUTH” 3. The creation of ROUTE(6) objects will no longer need authorisation from the ASN holder We will implement these changes in the Release Candidate environment on Thursday, 2 August and go to full production on Tuesday, 4 September. Our implementation plan can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/impact-analysis-for-nwi-5-imple… <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/impact-analysis-for-nwi-5-imple…> The RIPE Database Working Group chairs also wrote a RIPE Labs article that describes the background of NWI-5: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/out-of-region-route-6-and-aut-num-objec… <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/out-of-region-route-6-and-aut-num-objec…> <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/out-of-region-route-6-and-aut-num-objec… <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/out-of-region-route-6-and-aut-num-objec…>> Please contact ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net <mailto:ripe-dbm@ripe.net>. if you still have questions after reading the implementation plan. Best regards, Nathalie Trenaman Product Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Proposal 2018-04, "PDP Clarification" in Review Phase
by Bijal Sanghani 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Dear all, A quick note to let you know proposal 2018-04, "PDP Clarification" is now in Review Phase and open for discussion on the RIPE Discussion mailing list. If you would like more information please take a look at the proposal and provide your feedback to <ripe-list(a)ripe.net <mailto:ripe-list@ripe.net>> before 17 July 2018, you can find the proposal here - https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04 Kind regards, Bijal Sanghani RIPE NCC Services WG Co-Chair

1 0

Draft Agenda RIPE76 - NCC Services Working Group
by Bijal Sanghani 16 May '18

16 May '18

Dear all, Below and shortly online you can find the NCC Services working group draft agenda, any additions or comments please let me know. Best regards, NCC Services working group chairs === Date: Wednesday 16 May 2018 Time: 16.00 - 17.45 Chair: Kurtis Lindqvist Co-Chair: Bijal Sanghani A. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) Welcome Select a scribe Finalise agenda Approve minutes from RIPE 75 https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services/minutes/ripe-75-ripe-ncc-… <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services/minutes/ripe-69-ripe-ncc-…> B. RIPE NCC Update Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) C. Knowing our Members and building communities Hisham Ibrahim, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) D. RIPE Community Project Fund Alastair Strachan, RIPE NCC (15 minutes) E. GDPR Implementation at the RIPE NCC Maria Stafyla, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) F. RIPE NCC Arbitration Procedures Arbiter Name, RIPE NCC Arbiter (15 minutes) G. Open Microphone Session (5 minutes) Z. Any other business

1 1

Feature request: publishing abstracts for accepted submissions for the RIPE events
by Artyom Gavrichenkov 09 May '18

09 May '18

Hi all, During a call for papers for each meeting organized by RIPE NCC, a speaker is expected to provide an abstract for each submission of a plenary talk. These abstracts are then evaluated by the corresponding programme committee. They serve a purpose of providing an outline of the presentation, key points and topics covered in the talk. E.g. sometimes the title of a submission isn't in any way self-explanatory, but the abstract helps the programme committee members to quickly get an idea of what's going to be presented and whether it is relevant to the interests of the community. However, these abstracts are not published together with the agenda, they aren't even available in the mailing list -- though even that would be sort of suboptimal in my opinion, but anyway -- they're just getting lost forever. I believe it would be much appreciated by the audience if those abstracts for accepted submissions are published on the Web site of a meeting together with plenary agenda. A title itself often doesn't tell the audience a lot about the content of the talk, while an abstract certainly does. Say, once we had a submission for the ENOG meeting -- accepted later for no less than an opening plenary session -- called "Operating a secure network" -- go figure! NANOG meetings, APRICOT and other conferences do maintain a policy of publishing this ahead of an event, along with the agenda. Maybe there's a solid reason why NCC avoids doing that? I don't know, but I'll be glad to figure out. Any opinions on this one? | Artyom Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: ximaera(a)gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58

3 2

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Feature request: publishing abstracts for accepted submissions for the RIPE events
by Adam Castle 09 May '18

09 May '18

Hi Artyom and all, Thanks for bringing this up. We can discuss this request for publishing presentation abstracts with the RIPE and ENOG PCs at the upcoming RIPE and ENOG meetings. We've discussed such ideas before with the RIPE PC and at RIPE 76 we've applied a feature that presenters can add their own bio, if they want to, which will be associated with their presentation. An example of this can be seen on - https://ripe76.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/plenary/ under the TTLd: Total TCP Loss detection presentation. We will keep you updated. Many thanks, Adam Castle Web Services Manager RIPE NCC >>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:20 AM, Artyom Gavrichenkov <ximaera(a)gmail.com <mailto:ximaera@gmail.com> <mailto:ximaera@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> During a call for papers for each meeting organized by RIPE NCC, a >>>> speaker >>>> is expected to provide an abstract for each submission of a plenary >>>> talk. >>>> These abstracts are then evaluated by the corresponding programme >>>> committee. They serve a purpose of providing an outline of the >>>> presentation, key points and topics covered in the talk. >>>> >>>> E.g. sometimes the title of a submission isn't in any way >>>> self-explanatory, >>>> but the abstract helps the programme committee members to quickly get an >>>> idea of what's going to be presented and whether it is relevant to the >>>> interests of the community. >>>> >>>> However, these abstracts are not published together with the agenda, >>>> they >>>> aren't even available in the mailing list -- though even that would >>>> be sort >>>> of suboptimal in my opinion, but anyway -- they're just getting lost >>>> forever. >>>> >>>> I believe it would be much appreciated by the audience if those >>>> abstracts >>>> for accepted submissions are published on the Web site of a meeting >>>> together with plenary agenda. A title itself often doesn't tell the >>>> audience a lot about the content of the talk, while an abstract >>>> certainly >>>> does. Say, once we had a submission for the ENOG meeting -- accepted >>>> later >>>> for no less than an opening plenary session -- called "Operating a >>>> secure >>>> network" -- go figure! >>>> >>>> NANOG meetings, APRICOT and other conferences do maintain a policy of >>>> publishing this ahead of an event, along with the agenda. Maybe >>>> there's a >>>> solid reason why NCC avoids doing that? I don't know, but I'll be >>>> glad to >>>> figure out. >>>> >>>> Any opinions on this one? >>>> >>>> | Artyom Gavrichenkov >>>> | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 >>>> | mailto: ximaera(a)gmail.com <mailto:ximaera@gmail.com> <mailto:ximaera@gmail.com> >>>> | fb: ximaera >>>> | telegram: xima_era >>>> | skype: xima_era >>>> | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58 >>>> >>>> >>

1 0

Should we have a RIPE archivist?
by Shane Kerr 28 Apr '18

28 Apr '18

Hello all, tl;dr I think that we should have a RIPE archivist. More words: I was looking at some historical RIPE meeting records recently, and I noticed that as we go further back in time the quality of records gets worse. Formats are inconsistent, information is missing, and so on. Generally the records about RIPE meetings have improved recently, with working group minutes being easily accessible, plenary agendas clear, and so on. I appreciate the work that the RIPE NCC comms team has done to make it better! However, I think that it is reasonable to try to organize the old information as much as possible. For instance, minutes from working group sessions from many years ago are not on the web pages; although probably these can be found in mailing list archives in many cases. Other basic information like who was chair of which working group at any given time are difficult to find. I think the RIPE NCC should hire someone to improve the records. Probably such improvement would involve a couple of phases: 1. Initial work of going through all of the old records for the past 29 years and collecting them into a consistent, coherent set of data that is available on a set of web pages. 2. Establishing some tools and guidelines going forward, and actually applying them for future meetings and other RIPE activities so we don't have to repeat the exercise every 29 years. 😉 I know this would cost money, but it doesn't seem like it would be that expensive; certainly the 2nd, ongoing phase is not a full-time job. (It might be possible to give this task to one of the current staff, but that would mean taking away work from their current duties, and I have a feeling that there are people with training and experience that companies and other organizations use for this sort of work.) Anyway, please let me know if you think this idea makes sense or not. Cheers, -- Shane

14 21

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Should we have a RIPE archivist?
by Arash Naderpour 27 Apr '18

27 Apr '18

I understand that some of us are vary passionate about the RIPE "new comers" and always are trying to help them in any possible way. But I cannot see any reason why NCC members should pay for a ripe archivist at this stage as the demand for digging old discussions is not really high, and the outcome of having an archivist somehow is very limited. (cost/benefit?) Some volunteers can get involved for now and if later we could see a higher demand or need more resources, we can always ask NCC for a RIPE archivist. Regards, Arash > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 01:32:23PM +0430, Arash Naderpour wrote: >> > -1, >> > >> > It doesn't make sense to me at this stage. >> >> Why, exactly? In Address-Policy, for example, many of the current >> policies >> go back to discussions we had years and years ago. So having more easily >> accessible archives of "old discussions" would help newcomers to >> understand >> better why things evolved the way they did... >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster >> -- >> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >> >> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael >> Emmer >> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >> > >

2 2