Shane, et al, I think all of what you mention regarding research vs brokers are for the purpose of doing research. Anyone who might look at historical data as a broker, researcher, or otherwise has the use case of looking at previous data versions. I think your primary use cases are ;
1) Academic research for historical consildation of changes over time. 2) Legal research for holdership, custody, or ultimately who has held a resource over time. 3) Organizational change control of past configuration, registration, etc. I am not sure we need to differentiate personas of usage (academic, broker, legal, etc.) so much as understanding the use cases of the different buckets for the purposes of informing functionality required. Thanks, William On 6/12/24, 5:03 AM, "db-wg on behalf of Shane Kerr via db-wg" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Peter, On 12/06/2024 10.36, Peter Hessler via db-wg wrote: > > As you all know, the Database Working Group uses a different process from > other working groups, and have Numbered Work Items instead of > Policy Development Process. > > We've had many Items on the list, and some have been there since we created > the NWI process. So, the Chairs have decided that we need to go through > and clean up the list so we can complete the items we wish to complete. > > For this round, we'd like us to review two NWIs that are similar to each > other. > > https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/numbered-work-items/ > <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/numbered-work-items/> > > NWI-2 - Displaying history for database objects where available > NWI-17 - Historical data > > We ask the working group to discuss these two Items and decide if the WG > can confirm the problem statements and provide feedback if either of > these Items are still a problem that should be persued. > > We ask for discussion on list until Friday July 5th. My understanding is that there are two main consumers of historical data: 1. Researchers 2. IPv4 brokers For researchers, what they are looking for is limited basically by imagination. Size trends, rate of churn, connectivity histories, market centralization, and so on; a careful study of RIPE Database records might show things for any of these and more. For IPv4 brokers, I think that they are trying to do due diligence to ensure that the space that they are managing the sale of is actually legitimate. NWI-2 aims to fix an inconsistency where deleted objects are not visible in history. Presumably this is useful for both researchers and IPv4 brokers. NWI-17 is the result of the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force report, and recommends limiting the data available to what is needed for the common use case. It also recommends fixing the historical data to handle split & merging of address blocks. Basically, I think this is all reasonable (disclaimer, I was on the task force), and ends up looking like: 1. Add support for deleted records to historical queries 2. Add support for split & merged address blocks to historical queries 3. Strip anything but the absolute necessary information from historical queries 4. Provide a way to get full historical information via some other process (possibly using NDA with the RIPE NCC or the like) For #3, I don't know what is necessary since I don't broker IPv4 sales, but probably it is something like changes to the organization responsible for a given block with the dates those occurred, and that's basically it. Cheers, -- Shane -- 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
