Hi, apologies for the top posting.
I think Job’s proposal is a good one. I support it. Whether we delete the object in RIPE-NONAUTH IRR once a ROA is created or whether we delete all of them all together in one cleanup, I think we should get rid of this old stale data. I am not sure a grace period makes sense if the proposal moves forward as is. A grace period would make sense if this proposal is updated so that RIPE NCC is tasked to do a one-time cleaning of all the RIPE-NONAUTH route objects. my 2 cents, elvis Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device. > On Oct 16, 2018, at 14:18, Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Job Snijders > >> 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. > > Yes, any e-mail address associated with the object to be deleted > (notify:, mnt-by:, etc). > > The recipient will in some cases be «the adversary», true, but I don't > see the a problem with that since he will be powerless to stop the > impending deletion anyway. > > Also, it's also acceptable if the notifications don't reach anyone at > all. At least the attempt was made, we can't do much more than that. > > That said, this grace period is not a deal-breaker for me. I'm fine > with the proposal either way, really. > > Tore >
