Hi, apologies for the top posting. I think Job’s proposal is a good one. I support it. Whether we delete the object in RIPE-NONAUTH IRR once a ROA is created or whether we delete all of them all together in one cleanup, I think we should get rid of this old stale data. I am not sure a grace period makes sense if the proposal moves forward as is. A grace period would make sense if this proposal is updated so that RIPE NCC is tasked to do a one-time cleaning of all the RIPE-NONAUTH route objects. my 2 cents, elvis Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.
On Oct 16, 2018, at 14:18, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
* Job Snijders
I am not sure that RIPE NCC can reliably figure out who to email - do you email the adversary?
It may be tricky to programmatically find the appropriate contacts to send the notification. The route/route6 object's "notify:" attribute (when present) is perhaps not entirely suitable in this context - since that mail address may not point to the resource holder but rather to a previous owner, an adversary or simply the wrong people.
If it is acceptable to the community that a percentage of notifications won't arrive at all, or go to the entirely wrong people - I'm willing to entertain the possibility of amending the proposal to add one-off notifications when an object is deleted. But I do think it'll lead to more confusion, rather than be useful.
Yes, any e-mail address associated with the object to be deleted (notify:, mnt-by:, etc).
The recipient will in some cases be «the adversary», true, but I don't see the a problem with that since he will be powerless to stop the impending deletion anyway.
Also, it's also acceptable if the notifications don't reach anyone at all. At least the attempt was made, we can't do much more than that.
That said, this grace period is not a deal-breaker for me. I'm fine with the proposal either way, really.
Tore