Colleagues The Task Force (TF) made the recommendation in NWI-17, but did not give any justification for it. They said "access to this data should be limited to what is necessary for the most common type of use cases.". The obvious follow up question is 'why should it be limited?' It is (or should be) all operational data, not personal. I'm not sure what problem we are trying to solve here with NWI-17. I really don't see any benefit to anyone by creating a split level access to a relatively small range of historical operational data items. The TF went on to say "Regarding research usage, the task force recommends that the RIPE NCC grants access to a wider set of historical data to researchers...". Again, why? What makes researchers special? Why should they be allowed a privileged access that no one else has? How do you even define 'researcher' in this context? Also looking at things with a high level mindset and ignoring the detail, it is easy to make recommendations that sound simple. The implementation and ongoing management by the RIPE NCC of a split level historical query service would be a nightmare. I am not just talking about the software changes needed, but all aspects of implementing and managing this service. I will explain this in detail in another email (if needed).
Ed clarified that all objects are available for historical queries except PERSON and ROLE. I'm not sure how much the set objects are historically queried. I suspect the two main objects of interest are INETNUM and ORGANISATION. Let's look at the INETNUM object and remove those attributes Ed said are filtered for privacy. Then remove the redundant attributes like source: and date stamps that are included in the time stamps on the query response. Perhaps some of the optional mnt- attributes and geoloc:, language: that the majority of objects don't contain. Also country: that is meaningless. This is what we end up with: inetnum: netname: descr: geofeed: org: sponsoring-org: abuse-c: status: remarks: mnt-by: mnt-lower: Are we seriously talking about splitting this small number of data items into two levels? One set that everyone can see and another set that a select group of people can request to see. Many of these attributes are optional and most assignment objects (which are most of the INETNUM objects in the database) don't contain them. So the core data of an INETNUM object is: inetnum: netname: descr: status: remarks: mnt-by: If people are mostly querying allocation objects it might look more like this: inetnum: netname: descr: org: status: remarks: mnt-by: mnt-lower: Looking at the ORGANISATION object in the same way, we end up with a basic data set for a type: LIR object as: organisation: org-name: org-type: descr: remarks: country: phone: abuse-c: mnt-ref: mnt-by: The high cost and low (if any) benefit of splitting this data is completely pointless. Or maybe it will be split on object types. But given that few people are likely to be querying the history of some of the object types, like maybe set objects and poems, does it still make any sense? Do we really have a problem making such a small range of data items available to anyone who is interested in this operational data? If there is a concern that some personal data still slips through, maybe in descr:, then perhaps it needs another legal review, not a redesign. My recommendation is that we drop NWI-17. cheers denis ======================================================== DISCLAIMER Everything I said above is my personal, professional opinion. It is what I believe to be honest and true to the best of my knowledge. No one in this industry pays me anything. I have nothing to gain or lose by any decision. I push for what I believe is for the good of the Internet, in some small way. Nothing I say is ever intended to be offensive or a personal attack. Even if I strongly disagree with you or question your motives. Politicians question each other's motives all the time. RIPE discussion is often as much about politics and self interest as it is technical. I have a style of writing that some may not be familiar with, others sometimes use it against me. I also have OCD. It makes me see the world slightly differently to others. It drives my mind's obsessive need for detail. I can not change the way I express my detailed opinions. People may choose how to interpret them. ======================================================== On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 10:36, Peter Hessler via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Working Group, > > 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/ > > 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. > > Peter Hessler > on behalf of the Database WG Chairs > > -- > > 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 -- 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
