Dear colleagues,
After reading the discussion on NWI-20, I would like to explain why I
think the NWI process is suitable for finding consensus on the proposed
changes:
- With the exception of abuse-c, there is no current policy defining
which contact methods are mandatory and which are optional. This has
always been defined by the RIPE Database rules.
- Only objects managed by RIPE Database users are in scope because the
RIPE NCC does not maintain person or role objects.
- Only those person and role objects created, modified and referenced as
admin-c and tech-c after the implementation would be affected by the
proposed changes.
Please note that I do not see this as excluding use of the PDP for
future registration policies, which might describe actions the RIPE NCC
must undertake to verify compliance.
I hope this helps,
Kind regards,
Angela
Angela Dall'Ara
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC
On 20/09/2025 11:46, David Tatlisu via db-wg wrote:
Hi Everybody,
Depending on the interpretation of ripe-508, email addresses might
already be a mandatory but unenforced part of PERSON objects.
In the context of Internet number resources, the policy states:
> In case the Status is either "Allocated" or "Legacy", the following
information is also mandatory:
[…]
> Contact information for matters of an administrative nature, and for
matters of a technical nature. This information consists of an email
address and a telephone number
I read this as "The mandatory attributes admin-c and tech-c must have
an email address and telephone number."
The backend allows referencing a PERSON object not containing an email
address as well as a ROLE object that does not include a phone number
for these two attributes, which would make a policy violation possible
by my interpretation.
Edward has looked through the RIPE policies behind the scenes and did
not find any other policy that would need changes because of this change.
I might be misunderstanding this and would love to hear additional
input from the community on this matter.
Assuming I did not misunderstand, this would make a policy change
unnecessary to proceed. Please correct me in case I misunderstood.
Regardless of the topic above, changing about a million PERSON objects
is not a small task. I, personally, agree with Ed here. I do not see a
way of implementing this without a gradual multi-step plan, if at all
possible.
I am more than happy to allocate time for this in the RIPE 91 agenda
or start planning another interim working group session to discuss
this issue further.
Best regards,
David
DB-WG Chair
On 9/19/25 9:42 AM, Edward Shryane wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On 18 Sep 2025, at 14:41, denis walker<[email protected]> wrote:
Colleagues
I guess no one has an opinion on any of this. You are happy to
continue with an NWI to create an unenforceable mandatory email
address. You don't see any problems adding a new mandatory attribute
across, potentially, millions of objects. And you are all OK to
continue adding and maintaining an existing mandatory email in
millions of objects, even though none of you have any idea what that
attribute means. I don't think anyone has time to consider RIPE
Database issues any more. As long as it still, just about, works
then leave it alone. Well good luck with this project. You will need
it if you go ahead with it.
cheers
denis
The DB team are working on a Solution Definition for NWI-20 and I'd
like some feedback on the points that Denis has rasied before we
proceed further.
Firstly, do we need to use the Policy Development Process to make
e-mail mandatory on person objects? E-mail is already mandatory on
organisation and role but not on person. I couldn't find a reason for
this inconsistency in existing policies, or any requirement to make
it so.
Secondly, do we need to cleanup existing person objects if e-mail is
changed to be mandatory? Half of the existing 2 million person
objects do not have an e-mail attribute. It seems unlikely that
maintainers will add e-mail retrospectively. We could add validation
to require e-mail only when person objects are updated, however most
person objects are created and never updated again. We could add
validation to require e-mail when a person is added as a contact on
another object, however most exising persons are referenced from a
single assignment and then never referenced again.
Thirdly, should mandatory e-mail remain part of NWI-20, in addition
to creating new contact types? Multiple people in this thread have
asked for it, but perhaps the changes can be made in phases, and the
wider issues that Denis has raised can be tackled separately.
Regards
Ed Shryane
RIPE NCC
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription
options, please
visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account
with the email matching your subscription before you can change your
settings.
More details
at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription
options, please visit:
https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account
with the email matching your subscription before you can change your
settings. More details at:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the
email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
