Re: [db-wg] NWI reviews: NWI-2 displaying history for DB objects where available
Hi, I would like to support this initiative and request that it gets implemented. Recently we developed a platform for IP Transfers where we provide a lot of data to our customers to help them do their due diligence before deciding to make a transfer of IP addresses. We collect ripe historic whois, apnic and arin whowas among other sets of data. We've realized in the past 6 months, since our platform went live, that a lot of our customers value this information and find it extremely useful when deciding which IP block they want to transfer. However, we can not collect this data for our customer's due diligence if the resource is deleted (and re-created) due to a transfer or other events. So, you have my support to make this data available either through the current ripe historic whois tool or using a whowas tool, whether it is public (as APNIC's) or one that requires registration (as ARIN's). I can have dozens of customers confirm this is useful data, let me know if I should contact them and tell them to voice their opinion on this mailing list or whether my voice is enough at this time :) cheers, elvis On 10/1/20 5:07 AM, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote: Hi Ronald You are mistaken :) The query string can be a single IP address or CIDR or a range. And the range doesn't even need to be an exact matching range. So if you search for: x.y.0.0 - x.y.0.100 and the actual object in the database is: x.y.0.0 - x.y.0.255 it will still return this database object. As long as the search string is encompassed by the actual object. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Thursday, 1 October 2020, 04:42:38 CEST, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote: On a related but different point... >Let me give some background on this. Objects in the database are accessed b= >y their primary key (pkey). In the case of an INETNUM object, for instance,= >this is an address range... Actually, not to quibble or anything, but unless I'm mistaken, the query string has to be either a single IP address or a single CIDR. I only mention this because some allocations are what I would call "funny", i.e. they are not expressible as a single CIDR. Regards, rfg
Re: [db-wg] Fwd: proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:
Hi Randy On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 19:07, Randy Bush wrote: > > > Hi guys > > ahem > > > GDPR applies to the entire RIPE Database because the RIPE NCC, who > > operate the database, is based in the EU. > > appreciate the legal opinion. how come person: objects are allowed? > I asked this very specific question about coverage of GDPR over the data set quite recently to the NCC's legal team and that is the answer they gave me. PERSON objects are not allowed in the way they are currently used...we need to do something about that...(I am working on it :) ) cheers denis co-chair DB-WG > randy
Re: [db-wg] Fwd: proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:
> Hi guys ahem > GDPR applies to the entire RIPE Database because the RIPE NCC, who > operate the database, is based in the EU. appreciate the legal opinion. how come person: objects are allowed? randy
Re: [db-wg] proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:
Hi Michael, > On 8 Jan 2021, at 15:16, Michael Kafka via db-wg wrote: > > Dear members, > ... > Much more critical are the 100k or maybe even millions of RIPE-db > entries, containing name and street address of natural persons which > are under the sole control of RIPE. > > Best regards, > > MiKa > If you are referring to PERSON objects, then out of 2 million PERSON objects in the RIPE database, only 14,841 are maintained by the RIPE NCC. 13,277 of these are (previously unmaintained) locked person objects, which we are in the process of cleaning up. The vast majority of PERSON objects are referenced from inet(6)num allocations and assignments (i.e. maintained by LIRs and End Users). Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
Re: [db-wg] Fwd: proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:
Hi guys GDPR applies to the entire RIPE Database because the RIPE NCC, who operate the database, is based in the EU. It does not matter where the data subject or data maintainer is based. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 13:43, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote: > > Randy Bush via db-wg wrote on 10/01/2021 23:36: > > as today's legal authority, can you tell me if gdpr applies to all parts > > of the british isles? asking for a friend. > > If you're referring to the UK, the EU GDPR no longer applies there, at > least not since our close colleagues left the EU. They still use the UK > Data Protection Act 2018, which is based on the EU GDPR though, and > which provides full equivalence. > > The EU GDPR does apply to the Republic of Ireland (which remains part of > the EU), but not Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. > > UK post codes only identify the area where someone lives, so cannot be > used to identify individuals, and therefore would be unlikely to be > covered by the UK Data Protection Act 2018. OTOH, each RoI postcode > identifies an exact building, so there would be a case that there were > GDPR implications there. > > Nick >
Re: [db-wg] Fwd: proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:
Randy Bush via db-wg wrote on 10/01/2021 23:36: as today's legal authority, can you tell me if gdpr applies to all parts of the british isles? asking for a friend. If you're referring to the UK, the EU GDPR no longer applies there, at least not since our close colleagues left the EU. They still use the UK Data Protection Act 2018, which is based on the EU GDPR though, and which provides full equivalence. The EU GDPR does apply to the Republic of Ireland (which remains part of the EU), but not Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. UK post codes only identify the area where someone lives, so cannot be used to identify individuals, and therefore would be unlikely to be covered by the UK Data Protection Act 2018. OTOH, each RoI postcode identifies an exact building, so there would be a case that there were GDPR implications there. Nick
