Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Job Snijders via db-wg]

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 11:30:03PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> As Job said it is at an early discussion stage. If we do this using
> the NWI mechanism then the Problem statement and then a Solution
> definition will be discussed on the mailing list by anyone with an
> interest in this issue. Someone has to put forward a first draft for
> discussion.

Ideally RIPE NCC employees participate in the IETF process to produce
NRTM v4. RIPE DB-WG members (and other industry stakeholders) are also
free to participate in such a process. The GROW working group is
probably the best fit given its history with RPSL.

> Once these are agreed, we have three options:
> A-The RIPE NCC does the design and implementation
> B-A small group (Task Force?) of community people, with the RIPE NCC,
> does the design and implementation
> C-We have design by committee on the mailing list

The design for NRTM v4 should take place through the IETF process, as we
seek to create an inter-operable standard supported by multiple
implementations (some of which are not controlled by RIPE NCC).

> Let's discuss the problem and solution ideas and then most likely
> option B is the way to move forward.

It is my understanding that an agreed upon problem statement in the form
of a NWI from DB-WG will help RIPE NCC to allocate resources to help
design and implement NRTM v4.

Kind regards,

Job

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Elad Cohen via db-wg]

Hello,

To option B I'm interested to join as well.

Kind Regards,
Elad

From: db-wg  on behalf of Cynthia Revström via db-wg 

Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 12:52 AM
To: denis walker 
Cc: Database WG 
Subject: Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

Hi Denis,

If we end up with option B, consider me interested in joining :)

-Cynthia

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 23:30 denis walker via db-wg 
mailto:db-wg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Hi All

As Job said it is at an early discussion stage. If we do this using
the NWI mechanism then the Problem statement and then a Solution
definition will be discussed on the mailing list by anyone with an
interest in this issue. Someone has to put forward a first draft for
discussion.

Once these are agreed, we have three options:
A-The RIPE NCC does the design and implementation
B-A small group (Task Force?) of community people, with the RIPE NCC,
does the design and implementation
C-We have design by committee on the mailing list

Let's discuss the problem and solution ideas and then most likely
option B is the way to move forward.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 16:00, Job Snijders via db-wg 
mailto:db-wg@ripe.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi Cynthia,
>
> The NRTM v4 initiative is in an awkward early stage where various
> parties (with *no* obligations towards each other!) are attempting to
> set the stage for the future existence of an inter-operable successor to
> the NRTM v3 protocol.
>
> As indicated before, the nature of this call was informal, akin to a
> hallway meeting at a conference. Decisions about the RIPE NCC database
> are made on the db...@ipe.net<mailto:db...@ipe.net> mailing list. It was a 
> courtesy to this
> group to indicate some volunteers would have a call to help progress
> things. You too were free to join. Hallway meetings are not recorded.
>
> I'm interested to hear your opinions on-list or off-list! :-)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 10:36:43AM +0100, Cynthia Revström wrote:
> > I would like to see more here on the mailing list, so I would request that
> > any future calls be recorded and published.
> >
> > I have opinions on this subject and I don't think me missing the call
> > should leave me out of the loop.
> >
> > - Cynthia
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 11:31 Stavros Konstantaras <
> > stavros.konstanta...@ams-ix.net<mailto:stavros.konstanta...@ams-ix.net>> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Cynthia,
> > >
> > > Yes the call happened and the problem description is almost ready. Soon
> > > will be published here in the mailing list so the DB-WG chairs can
> > > officially create a new NWI and submit it to RIPE NCC developers
> > >
> > > Thank you for your support and your interest on that :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX
> > > M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
> > > ams-ix.net<http://ams-ix.net>
> > >
> > > On 6 Nov 2020, at 02:51, Cynthia Revström via db-wg 
> > > mailto:db-wg@ripe.net>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I also support creating a new NWI for a modernized NRTM like service.
> > >
> > > - Cynthia
> > >
> > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 02:50 Cynthia Revström, 
> > > mailto:m...@cynthia.re>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Job,
> > >>
> > >> Was there a call about this yet?
> > >>
> > >> And if so, was there any outcome?
> > >>
> > >> - Cynthia
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg, 
> > >> mailto:db-wg@ripe.net>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
> > >>> > I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of
> > >>> > NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem
> > >>> > statement?
> > >>>
> > >>> Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject
> > >>> so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other
> > >>> interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an
> > >>> updated problem statement for NWI-12?
> > >>>
> > >>> Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway
> > >>> chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing
> > >>> list.
> > >>>
> > >>> Kind regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Job
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
>

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Cynthia Revström via db-wg]

Hi Denis,

If we end up with option B, consider me interested in joining :)

-Cynthia

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 23:30 denis walker via db-wg  wrote:

> Hi All
>
> As Job said it is at an early discussion stage. If we do this using
> the NWI mechanism then the Problem statement and then a Solution
> definition will be discussed on the mailing list by anyone with an
> interest in this issue. Someone has to put forward a first draft for
> discussion.
>
> Once these are agreed, we have three options:
> A-The RIPE NCC does the design and implementation
> B-A small group (Task Force?) of community people, with the RIPE NCC,
> does the design and implementation
> C-We have design by committee on the mailing list
>
> Let's discuss the problem and solution ideas and then most likely
> option B is the way to move forward.
>
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
>
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 16:00, Job Snijders via db-wg 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Cynthia,
> >
> > The NRTM v4 initiative is in an awkward early stage where various
> > parties (with *no* obligations towards each other!) are attempting to
> > set the stage for the future existence of an inter-operable successor to
> > the NRTM v3 protocol.
> >
> > As indicated before, the nature of this call was informal, akin to a
> > hallway meeting at a conference. Decisions about the RIPE NCC database
> > are made on the db...@ipe.net mailing list. It was a courtesy to this
> > group to indicate some volunteers would have a call to help progress
> > things. You too were free to join. Hallway meetings are not recorded.
> >
> > I'm interested to hear your opinions on-list or off-list! :-)
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Job
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 10:36:43AM +0100, Cynthia Revström wrote:
> > > I would like to see more here on the mailing list, so I would request
> that
> > > any future calls be recorded and published.
> > >
> > > I have opinions on this subject and I don't think me missing the call
> > > should leave me out of the loop.
> > >
> > > - Cynthia
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 11:31 Stavros Konstantaras <
> > > stavros.konstanta...@ams-ix.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Cynthia,
> > > >
> > > > Yes the call happened and the problem description is almost ready.
> Soon
> > > > will be published here in the mailing list so the DB-WG chairs can
> > > > officially create a new NWI and submit it to RIPE NCC developers
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your support and your interest on that :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX
> > > > M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
> > > > ams-ix.net
> > > >
> > > > On 6 Nov 2020, at 02:51, Cynthia Revström via db-wg 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I also support creating a new NWI for a modernized NRTM like service.
> > > >
> > > > - Cynthia
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 02:50 Cynthia Revström,  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Job,
> > > >>
> > > >> Was there a call about this yet?
> > > >>
> > > >> And if so, was there any outcome?
> > > >>
> > > >> - Cynthia
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg, 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
> > > >>> > I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new
> version of
> > > >>> > NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem
> > > >>> > statement?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this
> subject
> > > >>> so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other
> > > >>> interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate
> an
> > > >>> updated problem statement for NWI-12?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway
> > > >>> chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the
> mailing
> > > >>> list.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Kind regards,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Job
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> >
>
>

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[denis walker via db-wg]

Hi All

As Job said it is at an early discussion stage. If we do this using
the NWI mechanism then the Problem statement and then a Solution
definition will be discussed on the mailing list by anyone with an
interest in this issue. Someone has to put forward a first draft for
discussion.

Once these are agreed, we have three options:
A-The RIPE NCC does the design and implementation
B-A small group (Task Force?) of community people, with the RIPE NCC,
does the design and implementation
C-We have design by committee on the mailing list

Let's discuss the problem and solution ideas and then most likely
option B is the way to move forward.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 16:00, Job Snijders via db-wg  wrote:
>
> Hi Cynthia,
>
> The NRTM v4 initiative is in an awkward early stage where various
> parties (with *no* obligations towards each other!) are attempting to
> set the stage for the future existence of an inter-operable successor to
> the NRTM v3 protocol.
>
> As indicated before, the nature of this call was informal, akin to a
> hallway meeting at a conference. Decisions about the RIPE NCC database
> are made on the db...@ipe.net mailing list. It was a courtesy to this
> group to indicate some volunteers would have a call to help progress
> things. You too were free to join. Hallway meetings are not recorded.
>
> I'm interested to hear your opinions on-list or off-list! :-)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 10:36:43AM +0100, Cynthia Revström wrote:
> > I would like to see more here on the mailing list, so I would request that
> > any future calls be recorded and published.
> >
> > I have opinions on this subject and I don't think me missing the call
> > should leave me out of the loop.
> >
> > - Cynthia
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 11:31 Stavros Konstantaras <
> > stavros.konstanta...@ams-ix.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Cynthia,
> > >
> > > Yes the call happened and the problem description is almost ready. Soon
> > > will be published here in the mailing list so the DB-WG chairs can
> > > officially create a new NWI and submit it to RIPE NCC developers
> > >
> > > Thank you for your support and your interest on that :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX
> > > M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
> > > ams-ix.net
> > >
> > > On 6 Nov 2020, at 02:51, Cynthia Revström via db-wg 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I also support creating a new NWI for a modernized NRTM like service.
> > >
> > > - Cynthia
> > >
> > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 02:50 Cynthia Revström,  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Job,
> > >>
> > >> Was there a call about this yet?
> > >>
> > >> And if so, was there any outcome?
> > >>
> > >> - Cynthia
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg, 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
> > >>> > I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of
> > >>> > NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem
> > >>> > statement?
> > >>>
> > >>> Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject
> > >>> so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other
> > >>> interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an
> > >>> updated problem statement for NWI-12?
> > >>>
> > >>> Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway
> > >>> chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing
> > >>> list.
> > >>>
> > >>> Kind regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Job
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
>

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Job Snijders via db-wg]

Hi Cynthia,

The NRTM v4 initiative is in an awkward early stage where various
parties (with *no* obligations towards each other!) are attempting to
set the stage for the future existence of an inter-operable successor to
the NRTM v3 protocol. 

As indicated before, the nature of this call was informal, akin to a
hallway meeting at a conference. Decisions about the RIPE NCC database
are made on the db...@ipe.net mailing list. It was a courtesy to this
group to indicate some volunteers would have a call to help progress
things. You too were free to join. Hallway meetings are not recorded.

I'm interested to hear your opinions on-list or off-list! :-)

Kind regards,

Job

On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 10:36:43AM +0100, Cynthia Revström wrote:
> I would like to see more here on the mailing list, so I would request that
> any future calls be recorded and published.
> 
> I have opinions on this subject and I don't think me missing the call
> should leave me out of the loop.
> 
> - Cynthia
> 
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 11:31 Stavros Konstantaras <
> stavros.konstanta...@ams-ix.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Cynthia,
> >
> > Yes the call happened and the problem description is almost ready. Soon
> > will be published here in the mailing list so the DB-WG chairs can
> > officially create a new NWI and submit it to RIPE NCC developers
> >
> > Thank you for your support and your interest on that :)
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX
> > M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
> > ams-ix.net
> >
> > On 6 Nov 2020, at 02:51, Cynthia Revström via db-wg 
> > wrote:
> >
> > I also support creating a new NWI for a modernized NRTM like service.
> >
> > - Cynthia
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 02:50 Cynthia Revström,  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Job,
> >>
> >> Was there a call about this yet?
> >>
> >> And if so, was there any outcome?
> >>
> >> - Cynthia
> >>
> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg, 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
> >>> > I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of
> >>> > NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem
> >>> > statement?
> >>>
> >>> Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject
> >>> so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other
> >>> interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an
> >>> updated problem statement for NWI-12?
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway
> >>> chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing
> >>> list.
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>>
> >>> Job
> >>>
> >>>
> >

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Cynthia Revström via db-wg]

I would like to see more here on the mailing list, so I would request that
any future calls be recorded and published.

I have opinions on this subject and I don't think me missing the call
should leave me out of the loop.

- Cynthia

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 11:31 Stavros Konstantaras <
stavros.konstanta...@ams-ix.net> wrote:

> Hi Cynthia,
>
> Yes the call happened and the problem description is almost ready. Soon
> will be published here in the mailing list so the DB-WG chairs can
> officially create a new NWI and submit it to RIPE NCC developers
>
> Thank you for your support and your interest on that :)
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX
> M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
> ams-ix.net
>
> On 6 Nov 2020, at 02:51, Cynthia Revström via db-wg 
> wrote:
>
> I also support creating a new NWI for a modernized NRTM like service.
>
> - Cynthia
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 02:50 Cynthia Revström,  wrote:
>
>> Hi Job,
>>
>> Was there a call about this yet?
>>
>> And if so, was there any outcome?
>>
>> - Cynthia
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
>>> > I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of
>>> > NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem
>>> > statement?
>>>
>>> Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject
>>> so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other
>>> interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an
>>> updated problem statement for NWI-12?
>>>
>>> Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway
>>> chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing
>>> list.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Job
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg]

Hi Cynthia,

Yes the call happened and the problem description is almost ready. Soon will be 
published here in the mailing list so the DB-WG chairs can officially create a 
new NWI and submit it to RIPE NCC developers 

Thank you for your support and your interest on that :)


Best regards,

Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX 
M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
ams-ix.net

> On 6 Nov 2020, at 02:51, Cynthia Revström via db-wg  wrote:
> 
> I also support creating a new NWI for a modernized NRTM like service.
> 
> - Cynthia
> 
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 02:50 Cynthia Revström,  > wrote:
> Hi Job,
> 
> Was there a call about this yet?
> 
> And if so, was there any outcome?
> 
> - Cynthia
> 
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg,  > wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
> > I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of
> > NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem
> > statement?
> 
> Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject
> so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other
> interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an
> updated problem statement for NWI-12?
> 
> Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway
> chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing
> list.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
> 

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Cynthia Revström via db-wg]

I also support creating a new NWI for a modernized NRTM like service.

- Cynthia

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 02:50 Cynthia Revström,  wrote:

> Hi Job,
>
> Was there a call about this yet?
>
> And if so, was there any outcome?
>
> - Cynthia
>
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg,  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
>> > I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of
>> > NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem
>> > statement?
>>
>> Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject
>> so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other
>> interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an
>> updated problem statement for NWI-12?
>>
>> Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway
>> chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing
>> list.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Job
>>
>>

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Cynthia Revström via db-wg]

Hi Job,

Was there a call about this yet?

And if so, was there any outcome?

- Cynthia

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg,  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
> > I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of
> > NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem
> > statement?
>
> Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject
> so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other
> interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an
> updated problem statement for NWI-12?
>
> Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway
> chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing
> list.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
>

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Sasha Romijn via db-wg]

Hello Denis,

A new NWI sounds reasonable.

Working towards a solution that can then be implemented fairly quickly in
IRRd and the RIPE database is great, because it’ll allow us to reach fairly
wide adoption on a relatively short timescale.

I can’t make the proposed call, but I’ll wait to see what comes out of that
first - as the person who implemented NRTMv3 in IRRd and will be writing
on IRRd’s NRTMv4 implementation, I do have opinions :)

Sasha


> On 30 Oct 2020, at 08:36, Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dennis, 
> 
> I agree to close NWI-9 and proceed with opening of NWI-12 in order to explore 
> ways
> to modernise the NRTM service. With that said, please consider my interest 
> also for
> NWI-12. 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX 
> M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
> ams-ix.net 
> 
>> On 29 Oct 2020, at 18:30, denis walker > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Job
>> 
>> I would agree that NWI-9 is finished, according to the way it is
>> worded. I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new
>> version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the
>> problem statement?
>> 
>> cheers
>> denis
>> co-chair DB-WG
>> 
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 18:09, Job Snijders > > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear group,
>>> 
>>> I think NWI-9 needs to be reworded, it in part has been over taken by
>>> current events. Rereading 
>>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2019-April/006236.html 
>>> 
>>> what is described there actually already has completed.
>>> 
>>> RIPE NCC's NRTM servers are open to the public (this was not the case in
>>> april 2019 yet). The NRTM servers can be used to *subscribe* to changes
>>> in the RIPE database. When the NRTM client remains connected, it will
>>> receive NRTM updates as they come in. THIS IS IN-BAND, AND FAST. The
>>> rate of object change is very low compared to most information systems.
>>> 
>>> Looking at 
>>> https://ripe79.ripe.net/presentations/118-NWI-9_S.Konstantaras_DB-WG.pdf 
>>> 
>>> it is not clear to me what the problem definition is and how it relates
>>> to the wording of NWI-9. The proposed optimisations are either not in
>>> the RIPE IRR -> Cache layer (as NRTM is really near-real-time when
>>> implemented correctly) but elsewhere in the end-to-end route server
>>> functionality. From this perspective NWI-9 has already been completed!
>>> 
>>> Now, there is plenty to be left desired about NRTM v3. Even though it is
>>> both a push and pull protocol and very fast (the push can measured in
>>> single digit seconds), NRTM v3 clearly is an ancient protocol and the
>>> operational community would benefit from a re-design of NRTM.
>>> 
>>> WORK IS UNDER WAY: LACNIC has committed funding for IRRd's NRTM v4
>>> implementation. RIPE NCC's 'good for the Internet' community fund has
>>> also been requested. That decision is still pending with the committee
>>> operating that fund.
>>> 
>>> So what we have so far:
>>> 
>>>- A collective desire to replace NRTM v3 with something else
>>>- The *only* two IRR server code bases of this industry have
>>>  (partial) funding to make changes possible: IRRd and RIPE WHOIS server
>>>- A standardisation forum to publish the new spec: IETF
>>>- Multiple forums for input: RIPE DB-WG, IETF, *NOG, IRC, etc
>>> 
>>> If NWI-9 is kept open I would request it is reworded to the extend that
>>> this working group requests RIPE NCC to commit to help design,
>>> implement, test & adhere to what will become "NRTM v4".
>>> 
>>> I read Stavros' presentation where the above plan is listed as
>>> 'Langzaam' :-) but the characterization may be a little bit off: there
>>> is no Legal aspect to deal with: RIPE NCC made NRTM  freely,
>>> contract-less, publicly and in real-time available already. Also keep in
>>> mind that any new protocol will indeed need to be tested (even if
>>> general purpose components such as JSON, HTTPS and WebSockets are
>>> used!).
>>> 
>>> NRTM v4's design will have nothing to do with how NRTM v3 looks and
>>> feels. NRTM v4 will be HTTPS based, I guarantee it! This project has
>>> 'NRTM v4' as name to make it clear to the IRR operational community
>>> where in the internet-stack this protocol belongs, but that it is an
>>> improvement over version 3.
>>> 
>>> NRTM v4 can easily be something that is finished and deployed in 2021.
>>> What needs to be done is fairly straight-forward, and lots of existing
>>> tools can be used to make the job easier (like HTTPS and JSON).
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> Job
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:22:10PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
 Hi Stavros
 
 Thanks for the comment. I have let Ed know about your interest.
 
 cheers
 denis
 co-chair DB-W

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg]

Hi Dennis, 

I agree to close NWI-9 and proceed with opening of NWI-12 in order to explore 
ways
to modernise the NRTM service. With that said, please consider my interest also 
for
NWI-12. 


Best regards,

Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX 
M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
ams-ix.net

> On 29 Oct 2020, at 18:30, denis walker  wrote:
> 
> Hi Job
> 
> I would agree that NWI-9 is finished, according to the way it is
> worded. I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new
> version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the
> problem statement?
> 
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
> 
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 18:09, Job Snijders  wrote:
>> 
>> Dear group,
>> 
>> I think NWI-9 needs to be reworded, it in part has been over taken by
>> current events. Rereading 
>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2019-April/006236.html
>> what is described there actually already has completed.
>> 
>> RIPE NCC's NRTM servers are open to the public (this was not the case in
>> april 2019 yet). The NRTM servers can be used to *subscribe* to changes
>> in the RIPE database. When the NRTM client remains connected, it will
>> receive NRTM updates as they come in. THIS IS IN-BAND, AND FAST. The
>> rate of object change is very low compared to most information systems.
>> 
>> Looking at 
>> https://ripe79.ripe.net/presentations/118-NWI-9_S.Konstantaras_DB-WG.pdf
>> it is not clear to me what the problem definition is and how it relates
>> to the wording of NWI-9. The proposed optimisations are either not in
>> the RIPE IRR -> Cache layer (as NRTM is really near-real-time when
>> implemented correctly) but elsewhere in the end-to-end route server
>> functionality. From this perspective NWI-9 has already been completed!
>> 
>> Now, there is plenty to be left desired about NRTM v3. Even though it is
>> both a push and pull protocol and very fast (the push can measured in
>> single digit seconds), NRTM v3 clearly is an ancient protocol and the
>> operational community would benefit from a re-design of NRTM.
>> 
>> WORK IS UNDER WAY: LACNIC has committed funding for IRRd's NRTM v4
>> implementation. RIPE NCC's 'good for the Internet' community fund has
>> also been requested. That decision is still pending with the committee
>> operating that fund.
>> 
>> So what we have so far:
>> 
>>- A collective desire to replace NRTM v3 with something else
>>- The *only* two IRR server code bases of this industry have
>>  (partial) funding to make changes possible: IRRd and RIPE WHOIS server
>>- A standardisation forum to publish the new spec: IETF
>>- Multiple forums for input: RIPE DB-WG, IETF, *NOG, IRC, etc
>> 
>> If NWI-9 is kept open I would request it is reworded to the extend that
>> this working group requests RIPE NCC to commit to help design,
>> implement, test & adhere to what will become "NRTM v4".
>> 
>> I read Stavros' presentation where the above plan is listed as
>> 'Langzaam' :-) but the characterization may be a little bit off: there
>> is no Legal aspect to deal with: RIPE NCC made NRTM  freely,
>> contract-less, publicly and in real-time available already. Also keep in
>> mind that any new protocol will indeed need to be tested (even if
>> general purpose components such as JSON, HTTPS and WebSockets are
>> used!).
>> 
>> NRTM v4's design will have nothing to do with how NRTM v3 looks and
>> feels. NRTM v4 will be HTTPS based, I guarantee it! This project has
>> 'NRTM v4' as name to make it clear to the IRR operational community
>> where in the internet-stack this protocol belongs, but that it is an
>> improvement over version 3.
>> 
>> NRTM v4 can easily be something that is finished and deployed in 2021.
>> What needs to be done is fairly straight-forward, and lots of existing
>> tools can be used to make the job easier (like HTTPS and JSON).
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Job
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:22:10PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
>>> Hi Stavros
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the comment. I have let Ed know about your interest.
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> denis
>>> co-chair DB-WG
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 17:11, Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg
>>>  wrote:
 
 Hi WG chairs,
 
 
 I would like to declare that from our side we are still interested to team 
 up with Ed and RIPE NCC colleagues to continue the work on NWI-9 item
 in order to modernise the NRTM service with something better and more 
 suitable for our current needs.
 
 As far as I can recall, Ed and his team have several ideas to proceed 
 forward with this subject, so I believe that we would be able to draw a 
 clear development plan.
 And as a kind reminder, not only us (AMS-IX) but the European IXP 
 community has expressed interest on proceeding with that subject.
 
 
 Thank you and we are looking forward to discuss further steps on the 
 subject.
 
 
 
 Best regards,
 
 Stavros

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[denis walker via db-wg]

Hi Job

I am certainly available for that. Would you be available then Ed to
offer any input from the RIPE NCC?

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 20:38, Job Snijders  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
> > I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of
> > NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem
> > statement?
>
> Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject
> so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other
> interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an
> updated problem statement for NWI-12?
>
> Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway
> chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing
> list.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Job Snijders via db-wg]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
> I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of
> NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem
> statement?

Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject
so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other
interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an
updated problem statement for NWI-12?

Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway
chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing
list.

Kind regards,

Job

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[denis walker via db-wg]

Hi Job

I would agree that NWI-9 is finished, according to the way it is
worded. I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new
version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the
problem statement?

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 18:09, Job Snijders  wrote:
>
> Dear group,
>
> I think NWI-9 needs to be reworded, it in part has been over taken by
> current events. Rereading 
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2019-April/006236.html
> what is described there actually already has completed.
>
> RIPE NCC's NRTM servers are open to the public (this was not the case in
> april 2019 yet). The NRTM servers can be used to *subscribe* to changes
> in the RIPE database. When the NRTM client remains connected, it will
> receive NRTM updates as they come in. THIS IS IN-BAND, AND FAST. The
> rate of object change is very low compared to most information systems.
>
> Looking at 
> https://ripe79.ripe.net/presentations/118-NWI-9_S.Konstantaras_DB-WG.pdf
> it is not clear to me what the problem definition is and how it relates
> to the wording of NWI-9. The proposed optimisations are either not in
> the RIPE IRR -> Cache layer (as NRTM is really near-real-time when
> implemented correctly) but elsewhere in the end-to-end route server
> functionality. From this perspective NWI-9 has already been completed!
>
> Now, there is plenty to be left desired about NRTM v3. Even though it is
> both a push and pull protocol and very fast (the push can measured in
> single digit seconds), NRTM v3 clearly is an ancient protocol and the
> operational community would benefit from a re-design of NRTM.
>
> WORK IS UNDER WAY: LACNIC has committed funding for IRRd's NRTM v4
> implementation. RIPE NCC's 'good for the Internet' community fund has
> also been requested. That decision is still pending with the committee
> operating that fund.
>
> So what we have so far:
>
> - A collective desire to replace NRTM v3 with something else
> - The *only* two IRR server code bases of this industry have
>   (partial) funding to make changes possible: IRRd and RIPE WHOIS server
> - A standardisation forum to publish the new spec: IETF
> - Multiple forums for input: RIPE DB-WG, IETF, *NOG, IRC, etc
>
> If NWI-9 is kept open I would request it is reworded to the extend that
> this working group requests RIPE NCC to commit to help design,
> implement, test & adhere to what will become "NRTM v4".
>
> I read Stavros' presentation where the above plan is listed as
> 'Langzaam' :-) but the characterization may be a little bit off: there
> is no Legal aspect to deal with: RIPE NCC made NRTM  freely,
> contract-less, publicly and in real-time available already. Also keep in
> mind that any new protocol will indeed need to be tested (even if
> general purpose components such as JSON, HTTPS and WebSockets are
> used!).
>
> NRTM v4's design will have nothing to do with how NRTM v3 looks and
> feels. NRTM v4 will be HTTPS based, I guarantee it! This project has
> 'NRTM v4' as name to make it clear to the IRR operational community
> where in the internet-stack this protocol belongs, but that it is an
> improvement over version 3.
>
> NRTM v4 can easily be something that is finished and deployed in 2021.
> What needs to be done is fairly straight-forward, and lots of existing
> tools can be used to make the job easier (like HTTPS and JSON).
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:22:10PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> > Hi Stavros
> >
> > Thanks for the comment. I have let Ed know about your interest.
> >
> > cheers
> > denis
> > co-chair DB-WG
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 17:11, Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi WG chairs,
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to declare that from our side we are still interested to 
> > > team up with Ed and RIPE NCC colleagues to continue the work on NWI-9 item
> > > in order to modernise the NRTM service with something better and more 
> > > suitable for our current needs.
> > >
> > > As far as I can recall, Ed and his team have several ideas to proceed 
> > > forward with this subject, so I believe that we would be able to draw a 
> > > clear development plan.
> > > And as a kind reminder, not only us (AMS-IX) but the European IXP 
> > > community has expressed interest on proceeding with that subject.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you and we are looking forward to discuss further steps on the 
> > > subject.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX
> > > M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
> > > ams-ix.net
> > >
> >

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Job Snijders via db-wg]

Dear group,

I think NWI-9 needs to be reworded, it in part has been over taken by
current events. Rereading 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2019-April/006236.html
what is described there actually already has completed.

RIPE NCC's NRTM servers are open to the public (this was not the case in
april 2019 yet). The NRTM servers can be used to *subscribe* to changes
in the RIPE database. When the NRTM client remains connected, it will
receive NRTM updates as they come in. THIS IS IN-BAND, AND FAST. The
rate of object change is very low compared to most information systems.

Looking at 
https://ripe79.ripe.net/presentations/118-NWI-9_S.Konstantaras_DB-WG.pdf
it is not clear to me what the problem definition is and how it relates
to the wording of NWI-9. The proposed optimisations are either not in
the RIPE IRR -> Cache layer (as NRTM is really near-real-time when
implemented correctly) but elsewhere in the end-to-end route server
functionality. From this perspective NWI-9 has already been completed!

Now, there is plenty to be left desired about NRTM v3. Even though it is
both a push and pull protocol and very fast (the push can measured in
single digit seconds), NRTM v3 clearly is an ancient protocol and the
operational community would benefit from a re-design of NRTM.

WORK IS UNDER WAY: LACNIC has committed funding for IRRd's NRTM v4
implementation. RIPE NCC's 'good for the Internet' community fund has
also been requested. That decision is still pending with the committee
operating that fund.

So what we have so far:

- A collective desire to replace NRTM v3 with something else
- The *only* two IRR server code bases of this industry have
  (partial) funding to make changes possible: IRRd and RIPE WHOIS server
- A standardisation forum to publish the new spec: IETF
- Multiple forums for input: RIPE DB-WG, IETF, *NOG, IRC, etc

If NWI-9 is kept open I would request it is reworded to the extend that
this working group requests RIPE NCC to commit to help design,
implement, test & adhere to what will become "NRTM v4".

I read Stavros' presentation where the above plan is listed as
'Langzaam' :-) but the characterization may be a little bit off: there
is no Legal aspect to deal with: RIPE NCC made NRTM  freely,
contract-less, publicly and in real-time available already. Also keep in
mind that any new protocol will indeed need to be tested (even if
general purpose components such as JSON, HTTPS and WebSockets are
used!).

NRTM v4's design will have nothing to do with how NRTM v3 looks and
feels. NRTM v4 will be HTTPS based, I guarantee it! This project has
'NRTM v4' as name to make it clear to the IRR operational community
where in the internet-stack this protocol belongs, but that it is an
improvement over version 3.

NRTM v4 can easily be something that is finished and deployed in 2021.
What needs to be done is fairly straight-forward, and lots of existing
tools can be used to make the job easier (like HTTPS and JSON).

Kind regards,

Job

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:22:10PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> Hi Stavros
> 
> Thanks for the comment. I have let Ed know about your interest.
> 
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
> 
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 17:11, Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi WG chairs,
> >
> >
> > I would like to declare that from our side we are still interested to team 
> > up with Ed and RIPE NCC colleagues to continue the work on NWI-9 item
> > in order to modernise the NRTM service with something better and more 
> > suitable for our current needs.
> >
> > As far as I can recall, Ed and his team have several ideas to proceed 
> > forward with this subject, so I believe that we would be able to draw a 
> > clear development plan.
> > And as a kind reminder, not only us (AMS-IX) but the European IXP community 
> > has expressed interest on proceeding with that subject.
> >
> >
> > Thank you and we are looking forward to discuss further steps on the 
> > subject.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX
> > M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
> > ams-ix.net
> >
> 

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[denis walker via db-wg]

Hi Stavros

Thanks for the comment. I have let Ed know about your interest.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 17:11, Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg
 wrote:
>
> Hi WG chairs,
>
>
> I would like to declare that from our side we are still interested to team up 
> with Ed and RIPE NCC colleagues to continue the work on NWI-9 item
> in order to modernise the NRTM service with something better and more 
> suitable for our current needs.
>
> As far as I can recall, Ed and his team have several ideas to proceed forward 
> with this subject, so I believe that we would be able to draw a clear 
> development plan.
> And as a kind reminder, not only us (AMS-IX) but the European IXP community 
> has expressed interest on proceeding with that subject.
>
>
> Thank you and we are looking forward to discuss further steps on the subject.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX
> M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
> ams-ix.net
>

[db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

[Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg]

Hi WG chairs,


I would like to declare that from our side we are still interested to team up 
with Ed and RIPE NCC colleagues to continue the work on NWI-9 item 
in order to modernise the NRTM service with something better and more suitable 
for our current needs.

As far as I can recall, Ed and his team have several ideas to proceed forward 
with this subject, so I believe that we would be able to draw a clear 
development plan.
And as a kind reminder, not only us (AMS-IX) but the European IXP community has 
expressed interest on proceeding with that subject.


Thank you and we are looking forward to discuss further steps on the subject. 



Best regards,

Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX 
M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999
ams-ix.net