Purely as a point of information, Randy also asked for APNIC to consider this field, and it has been put into the Opportunity process inside Registry Product, of which I am the manager.
I am following this discussion. My primary concerns are the effects on tools, of a new type:value assertion appearing in the RPSL. If this is not a high barrier to deployment it has consequences beyond geofeed: marker for us. Separately, I think in order to ensure RDAP and Whois stay in alignment, some thought needs to be given to how this value projects into JSON in RDAP records. And, lastly, I would like this field, because it would relieve some of the tension around the country: marker in inetnum and inet6num and the economycode field of the delegated statistics file, which is by definition about the entity, not the addresses. Widespread acceptance of a geofeed mark would allow registry to return to a normative use of the economycode for the domicile of the holding entity. cheers -George On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:28 AM Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear DB-WG, > > Some colleagues are working to address the never-ending-story of 'where > the heck are IPs geographically?'. This problem space has been brought > up numerous times in the Database Working Group, but we never managed to > solve it. As with all compsci problems adding a layer of indirection can > help ;-) > > This current draft suggests overloading the RPSL 'remarks:' field with a > structured attribute value, however I suspect we would do ourselves a > disservice to overload a 'remarks:' field. > > Instead it would be better to add a 'geofeed:' attribute to the RPSL > inetnum/inetnum6 class dictionary, which as value contains a URL with > http or https scheme. > > The draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-opsawg-finding-geofeeds > > The value of the attribute could be validated using something like > "org.apache.commons.validator.UrlValidator", the attribute would look > like this, only valid in the inetnum/inet6num: > > "geofeed: [optional] [single] [ ]" > > Example object: > > inetnum: 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255 > netname: EXAMPLE > country: NL > geofeed: https://example.com/geofeed.csv > ... snip ... > source: RIPE > > What do others think? > > Kind regards, > > Job > > ps. In IRRd v4.2 support for the 'geofeed:' attribute will be added > https://github.com/irrdnet/irrd/issues/396 >
