Colleagues,
I will start with a blunt question, then give some arguments for my concern. In
May the RIPE NCC told me there are more than 2 million PERSON objects in the
RIPE Database. That is almost 25% of the objects in the database. Who are these
people and why do we hold so much personal dat
On 20/09/2018 15:04, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> I will start with a blunt question, then give some arguments for my
> concern. In May the RIPE NCC told me there are?more than 2 million
> PERSON objects in the RIPE Database. That is almost 25% of the objects
> in the database. W
Am 20.09.18 um 15:40 schrieb denis walker:
> Hi Alexander
>
> You may well be right but duplicated personal data in a public database
> for 'convenience' is probably not acceptable.
Hi Dennis,
I totally agree with you. But unfortunately it's difficult to force ISPs
to clean up their data.
Regar
On 20/09/2018 15:04, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> I will start with a blunt question, then give some arguments for my
> concern. In May the RIPE NCC told me there are more than 2 million
> PERSON objects in the RIPE Database. That is almost 25% of the objects
> in the database. W
Hi,
I am not sure how the best way to do this but maybe check the database
for person handles with identical name, address, phone number and such
things.
Also maybe if we could take a look at the amount of person handles that
are not used at all in any other object, and potentially delete them.
] PERSON objects in the RIPE Database
Hi,
I am not sure how the best way to do this but maybe check the database
for person handles with identical name, address, phone number and such
things.
Also maybe if we could take a look at the amount of person handles that
are not used at all in any other
Hi Alexander
You may well be right but duplicated personal data in a public database for
'convenience' is probably not acceptable.
cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG
From: Alexander Stranzky via db-wg
To: db-wg@ripe.net
Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2018, 14:57
Subject: [db-wg] PERS
jects or holding personal data
when a corporate role is all that is needed.
cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG
From: Hank Nussbacher via db-wg
To: db-wg@ripe.net
Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2018, 14:28
Subject: Re: [db-wg] PERSON objects in the RIPE Database
On 20/09/2018 15:04, denis w
To: ripede...@yahoo.co.uk; "db-wg@ripe.net"
Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2018, 15:45
Subject: [db-wg] PERSON objects in the RIPE Database
Am 20.09.18 um 15:40 schrieb denis walker:
> Hi Alexander
>
> You may well be right but duplicated personal data in a public database
&g
es then it should be removed.
>
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
>
>
>
> From: Alexander Stranzky via db-wg
> To: ripede...@yahoo.co.uk; "db-wg@ripe.net"
> Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2018, 15:45
> Subject: [db-wg] PERSON obj
quot;
Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2018, 15:45
Subject: [db-wg] PERSON objects in the RIPE Database
Am 20.09.18 um 15:40 schrieb denis walker:
Hi Alexander
You may well be right but duplicated personal data in a public database
for 'convenience' is probably not acceptable.
Hi Den
Hello,
On 9/21/18 5:00 PM, Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote:
> This really made me consider it, and I can't really see a valid reason
> to require person objects to create a maintainer for example.
You can use ROLE object instead of PERSON for maintaner creation (and of
course for every object, w
Hello,
My point was with the maintainer pair creation as I don't see a reason
to give up personal information in the first place.
Kind Regards,
Cynthia Revström
On 2018-09-21 18:38, Daniel Suchy via db-wg wrote:
Hello,
On 9/21/18 5:00 PM, Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote:
This really made
a heretical view on whois:
[ by whois, i do not mean the irr. the ripe db confounds the two. ]
back in the day, when some anomalous behavior hit one of my servers or
services, i used whois (yes, i still have a paper copy of the last
edition of the manager's handbook somewhere) and wrote or calle
denis walker via db-wg wrote on 20/09/2018 13:04:
This does raise a number of questions:
the requirement for admin-c and tech-c derive from what was thought to
be useful information to have at hand at the time when network
registrations were starting out at the InterNIC, way back in the late
cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG
From: Nick Hilliard via db-wg
To: denis walker
Cc: DB-WG
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2018, 23:46
Subject: Re: [db-wg] PERSON objects in the RIPE Database
denis walker via db-wg wrote on 20/09/2018 13:04:
> This does raise a number of questions:
the require
denis walker wrote on 25/09/2018 23:55:
So really the only question that must be answered is "Can we justify
holding this amount of personal data on the basis of contacts for
administrative and technical issues relating to internet resources and
network operations?" If the answer is 'no' then c
were
used instead of ROLE objects?
cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG
From: Nick Hilliard
To: denis walker
Cc: DB-WG
Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018, 14:56
Subject: Re: [db-wg] PERSON objects in the RIPE Database
denis walker wrote on 25/09/2018 23:55:
> So really the only question that mus
---
> *From:* Nick Hilliard
> *To:* denis walker
> *Cc:* DB-WG
> *Sent:* Sunday, 7 October 2018, 14:56
> *Subject:* Re: [db-wg] PERSON objects in the RIPE Database
>
> denis walker wrote on 25/09/2018 23:55:
> > So really the on
19 matches
Mail list logo
