Hi Cynthia
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:02, Cynthia Revström wrote:
>
> Oh right I forgot to add:
>
> > Why is it important to know what objects are protected from deletion?
> If it is not referenced by any resource object (directly or
> indirectly) and it is still in the DB in 3 months time, it is
> The RIPE NCC are creating /24 top-level allocations, but this size could also
> be used as a single (second level) assignment. However, we don't have a way
> (yet, see NWI-4) to distinguish between an allocation and assignment of the
> same size. Geofeed is allowed on a top-level resource but
Oh right I forgot to add:
> Why is it important to know what objects are protected from deletion?
If it is not referenced by any resource object (directly or
indirectly) and it is still in the DB in 3 months time, it is
protected.
It is just because you will not know if it is protected until it
> Just a side point for people to think about, should the NCC only offer
to protect ROLE objects that do not contain personal data?
I do not think so, I still want to keep the functionality of
whitepages, I only agree with removing duplicate implementations of
it.
I know that both me and several
> The RFC says "Until such time...". We have a "geofeed:" attribute now
> so we are past 'such time'. We should no longer even consider, or
> support, "remarks:'' as an option for geofeed.
you have the wrong end of the horse. it is the seeker/fetcher of
geofeed data who decides whether they look
Hi denis,
> On 22 Feb 2022, at 16:18, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
>
> Hi Cynthia
>
> I just checked and currently there are only 4 people using the
> whitepages and 1 of them is NCC staff. Certainly they will be
> contacted before deleting the feature.
I counted 5, none staff :)
I consider
Hi Cynthia
I just checked and currently there are only 4 people using the
whitepages and 1 of them is NCC staff. Certainly they will be
contacted before deleting the feature.
Why is it important to know what objects are protected from deletion?
If it is not referenced by any resource object
Dear Colleagues,
Next Tuesday, 1st March, the DB team plan to remove the Apache httpd proxy
servers for the following services:
* https://apps.db.ripe.net/
* https://rdap.db.ripe.net/
* https://rest.db.ripe.net/
* https://syncupdates.db.ripe.net/
This will allow us to simplify our production
Hi Ed
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 09:54, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote:
>
> Hi Massimo,
>
> > On 21 Feb 2022, at 16:29, Massimo Candela via db-wg wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > Thanks for the work done.
> >
>
> Thank you!
>
> >
> > On 21/02/2022 15:56, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote:
> >
> >> We
On 22/02/2022 13:33, Edward Shryane wrote:
To be clear, the Legal review looked at the "geofeed:" attribute alone, and did not consider
"remarks:". There is no requirement to validate "remarks:".
Given this, and thanks to your feedback, I will drop my suggestion to validate
"remarks:", and
Hi Job, Colleagues,
> On 22 Feb 2022, at 10:01, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 09:54:24AM +0100, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote:
>> Not doing any validation is not an option given the Legal review.
>
> Why not?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
To be clear, the Legal review looked
Hi Ed,
On 22/02/2022 09:54, Edward Shryane wrote:
(Ref. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ymbk-opsawg-finding-geofeeds)
I remember that :)
The "remarks:" format in the draft gives it a structure that allows it to be
validated (i.e. it's not really free text).
The RFC
Hi Denis,
> On 21 Feb 2022, at 17:10, denis walker wrote:
>
> Hi Ed
>
> Can you clarify this comment...
>
>>
>> Our Legal team have considered the concerns from a part of the community
>> regarding the eligible size for “geofeed:” validation and concluded the
>> following:
>> Since
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 09:54:24AM +0100, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote:
> Not doing any validation is not an option given the Legal review.
Why not?
Kind regards,
Job
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
Hi Massimo,
> On 21 Feb 2022, at 16:29, Massimo Candela via db-wg wrote:
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> Thanks for the work done.
>
Thank you!
>
> On 21/02/2022 15:56, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote:
>
>> We will also start enforcing the same validation on "remarks: geofeed" as on
>> "geofeed:" for
15 matches
Mail list logo
