Dear db-wg, Hope this email finds you in good health. Please see my comments below, inline...
Le vendredi 25 février 2022, Jeroen Massar via db-wg <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On 20220225, at 10:20, Peter Hessler via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2022 Feb 25 (Fri) at 10:05:15 +0100 (+0100), Job Snijders via db-wg > wrote: > > :On 2022-02-25 07:48, Peter Hessler via db-wg wrote: > > :> Alternatively, I propose we *drop* the geofeed: attribute and remove > it > > :> from the database. > > : > > :Can you motivate the suggestion? > > : > > :The suggestion appears like a regression to me, we both see value in > > :“geofeed:” (provided we can actually use it), right? > > : > > > > The motivation is if the attribute is too restricted to be useful, then > > lets not encourage a broken implementation. > > The attribute is not the technical problem, it is a legal party that > restricts it because of mostly unfounded concerns: > Hi Jeroen, Thanks for your email, brother! ...if the legal assessment/advice is broken, as most of the active members of this WG are saying, and if RIPE NCC choose to add it within the "geofeed:" attribute's implementation; then the situation appears to be the same :-/ > > if a LIR has permission of a user to publish their info, then they should > be able to. If a LIR does not have permission of the end-user, then the LIR > is liable when they do publish. > > Noting, that anybody can provide a geofeed.csv with even up to IPv4 /32 or > IPv6 /128 (so single IP) level entries... > > It is just a restriction in RIPE DB in the geofeed field, but not in > remarks. > > ...if the "remarks:" attribute is not targeted; then how to do with the same legal team's advice? > Which is why the restriction is so utterly pointless. > > Are you saying that the implementer shall not consider the legal advice for the "remarks:" attribute? In the same way that one can always "lie"/misrepresent in the geofeed file, > or give "less accurate" details (eg. saying you are in Amsterdam, while > actually being in a small village like Zoetermeer) and given that traffic > typically flows over Amsterdam in .nl (like most traffic in .ch is going > over Zurich, as that is where peering/DSLAM termination etc happens), not > unreasonable to do that that way. > > But it could be that in a /24, there are /28s that are in different > countries, thus it is needed to be able to specify that, especially because > the large corporations base their ads on IP addresses, but also languages > (instead of respecting this magic Accept-Language HTTP header...) > > ...though, i am of the view that it's difficult to understand the rational of the legal team's advice regarding the ability to add a URI as a value inside an attribute..."geofeed:" & "remarks:" too(?) Question: Is that URI a new type of personal data? Thanks. Shalom, --sb. > Greets, > Jeroen > > > -- > > [...] -- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure> Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!» #MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
