On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:46:20PM -0500, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear WG, > > Please review the below problem statement: > > -------- > NWI-6 - Applicable data model not clear from contextless objects > > Currently it is not possible to derive what semantics or data model > applies to a RPSL object in the RIPE database. This disadvantageous > property introduces complexity all across the board: > > - redefining the semantics of an existing RPSL attribute > introduces operational complexity. > - operators have precisely align their client-side software > deployment with the RIPE database deployment timeline. > - deprecating RPSL attributes which are "mandatory" (as defined > in the RPSL dictionary) is challenging as a client cannot know > if the object stems from a time in which the attribute was > mandatory or not. > - objects which are provided without historical context are hard > to parse, one cannot programmatically know how to interpret > the attributes or assess which attributes should have been > there. > ------- > > As author of this problem statement and co-chair of this Working Group I > have the following notes I'd like to share. Reflecting on the past > period in which I was tasked to assist the group in helping the database > progress, I've observed that any change or even proposal for change in > the database is easily met with detestation. > > A recurring theme is that post-deployment people comment "I was not > expecting this", and before in the proposal phase other stakeholders > state "this is too complex to deploy, we'll break old clients". > > I believe that if we somehow address the issue of introducing change > _itself_, we'll garner a crucial feature which will be rewarding in > whatever direction the database takes in future.
I agree with the problem statement. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: [email protected]
