Hi Job, Tore I understand but there were legitimate users, of the RIPE-NONAUTH objects (those in reciept of Legacy address space) and it would serve as full and final reminder to those who legitimately used the legacy RIPE-NONAUTH objects, to get the resource holders to update / create new route objects that are authenticated and in line with best current practice. I think the risk of emailing an adversary is minimal when they cannot do much about the pending object deletion. Thanks
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 13:07, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 The information contained in this E-mail is intended only for the confidential use of the named recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering it to the recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone at the number above and erase the message You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment.
