Hi Jacob
Yes you are right. The RIPE NCC can correct me if I am not entirely correct
here :) I believe, if an ORGANISATION object is referenced by a resource object
(even if it is "org-type: OTHER") then some attributes in the ORGANISATION
object will be locked. These, including the "org-name:", cannot be changed by
the resource holder. This can be seen if you query the object in Webupdates,
but I am not sure if there is a programatic way of checking this.
Or you could do an inverse query on an ORGANISATION object and if any resource
objects are returned (allocations, ASSIGNED PI or ASNs) then you know this
ORGANISATION object was subject to due diligence. Again not easy but
programatically doable.
cheersdenis
co-chair DB-WG
On Thursday, 1 August 2019, 03:37:23 CEST, Jacob Slater <[email protected]>
wrote:
it is type 'OTHER' it was not created by the RIPE NCC and will not have been
subjected to any due diligence checks by the RIPE NCC.
'OTHER' objects which receive direct assignments from the NCC (PI IP space or
ASNs) are still subjected to due diligence checks (though only at the time of
assignment).
I'd still argue the flag exists - search for 'ASSIGNED PI' (on IP space) or
'ASSIGNED (on ASNs) with the associated ORG object to see if any exist. Not
exactly (currently) straight forward but it is still definitely doable.
Jacob Slater
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 6:31 PM ripedenis--- via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote:
HI Nick
The ORGANISATION object has an "org-type:" attribute. Most ORGANISATION
objects have a value of either 'LIR' or 'OTHER'. If it is 'LIR' that
ORGANISATION object was created by the RIPE NCC for a resource holder and has
been through the due diligence process. If it is type 'OTHER' it was not
created by the RIPE NCC and will not have been subjected to any due diligence
checks by the RIPE NCC. So I think the 'binary flag' you suggested already
exists.
cheersdenis
co-chair DB-WG
On Monday, 29 July 2019, 19:40:47 CEST, Nick Hilliard via db-wg
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are ways of flagging whether this process was carried out. One
>> option would be to use a binary flag. Another would be to implement a
>> datestamp for the last due diligence process carried out if it's not
>> been set by the NCC. Lack of data could be flagged by either the
>> absence of the parameter or else use 0000-00-00T00:00:00Z.
>
> less sure here. i can see wanting to differentiate between the two
> classes of objects. not sure i care when they were last separated.
> unless you expect things to change in time.
if you have a better suggestion, go for it. My concern is mainly about
having a deterministic way of figuring out which org objects have been
subjected to due diligence and which haven't.
Nick
