On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:27:28PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > There's no need for a new proposal: a notification mechanism and a > grace period can be built into either the proposal or else the > operating procedure. > > Some of these old route objects have been there for many years. > Another couple of weeks isn't going to cause a huge amount of harm.
I'm hesitant to add such things because we don't have such a notification & grace period in BGP Origin Validation process when processing BGP route announcements either. Those are real time and a such a good control feedback loop. I think it'll significantly complicate the effects of the policy proposal by introducing back-out/undelete/grace-period elements. Regarding the notification process itself, it may be tricky to programmatically find the appropiate contacts to send the notification. The route/route6 object's "notify:" attribute (when present) is perhaps not entirely suitable in this context - since that mail address may not point to the resource holder but rather to a previous owner, an adversary or simply the wrong people. If it is acceptable to the community that a percentage of notifications won't arrive at all, or go to the entirely wrong people - I'm willing to entertain the possibility of amending the proposal to add one-off notifications when an object is deleted. But I do think it'll lead to more confusion, rather than be useful. Kind regards, Job
