Dear Tom, Tore, On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:04 PM Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote: > Im happy with the proposal, > again I think the prior notification + graceperiod suggestion makes sense > > +1 > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 12:57, Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > * Marco Schmidt > > > > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-06, "RIPE NCC IRR Database > > > Non-Authoritative Route Object Clean-up", is now available for discussion. > > > > > > The goal of the proposal is to delete an non-authoritative object stored > > > in the RIPE IRR, if it conflicts with an RPKI ROA. > > > > I've read the policy proposal and I think it makes sense. > > > > I see some respondents in db-wg asking for a notification of an upcoming > > deletion followed by a grace period. That's a reasonable ask, considering > > that a deletion of a RIPE-NONAUTH object is irreversible. > > > > In any case, +1.
I am not sure that RIPE NCC can reliably figure out who to email - do you email the adversary? It may be tricky to programmatically find the appropriate 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
