Dear Denis, > On 16 Dec 2025, at 03:57, denis walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Colleagues > > I agree with closing NWI-17. It would be a nightmare to implement and I also > believe it would put a considerable workload onto the RIPE NCC to operate. > There is a lot of hidden complexity in this simple suggestion. I won't go > into any detail unless anyone pushes for this NWI to be continued. > > NWI-2 is a different story. As David pointed out at RIPE 91, I wrote the spec > for introducing historical queries when I was at the NCC. At the time this > was a feature that had been talked about over coffee and beers at meetings. > There had been no great discussion on mailing lists. The RIPE NCC decided to > introduce this feature and see if it was useful. We didn't want to invest a > huge amount of time and effort in this. So I added this arbitrary limitation > of only giving history of the current instance of an object. The way the data > model works, when you delete and re-create an object it becomes a different > instance. You can then have multiple versions of multiple instances of an > object. So this limitation made the code easier to write. We got it up and > running and over the years it has proved to be quite useful to many database > users. > > We could look at removing this arbitrary limit in the same way. It has been > talked about in the corridors at meetings. As with the original concept, > there hasn't been any great discussion on mailing lists. So my suggestion to > the RIPE NCC is to just do it. We have this ongoing debate about whether some > changes should be an NWI or PDP. Some changes perhaps don't even need to be > debated. The RIPE NCC introduced this arbitrary limitation without any > discussion. They can just remove it now as a software update. I am sure that > I said at the time that I had added this arbitrary limitation and that it > could be removed if historical queries proved to be a useful feature. So I > think we have already made the argument for removing it. > > cheers > denis >
At RIPE 84, Maria Stafyla from the RIPE NCC Legal team presented on NWI-2 : https://ripe84.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/121-Legal-Update-NWI-RIPE84-DB-WG-1905.pdf The Legal analysis was that if personal data is part of a deleted object, there must be a purpose justifying the need to still display it in the RIPE Database, and there is no such justification in the current purposes as listed in the Terms and Conditions : https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/terms/ For this reason, Maria asked the community to define the requirements for NWI-2 and what is in scope. If there is still a requirement from the community to provide deleted information of resources holders in the RIPE database, then we need to clarify these requirements. 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/
