14:01 < RIPENCC_Maxim> Hi everyone, I'm Max from the RIPE NCC. If you have questions/comments for the presenter and want me to read it out, please state your name/affiliation and I'll go to the mic when questions are called for. Keep in mind that there is up to a 45 second delay for remote participants, so it's better to get your questions in before the question period begins.
14:01 < RIPENCC_Maxim> Please note that all chat transcripts will be archived and made available to the public on
14:04 < RIPENCC_Maxim> Edward Shrayne has begun the presentation "Operational Update - RIPE Database"
14:06 < ElvisVelea> Please ask Ed to speak closer to the microphone
14:08 < cynthia> RIPENCC_Maxim: Questions for Ed: is there an ETA for the implementation of NWI-8? And is there an update regarding potential open access to NRTM?
14:09 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @cynthia Could you tell me your name and organisation please?
14:10 < cynthia> Cynthia Maja Revström, speaking in personal capcacity
14:10 < ElvisVelea> Maxim, I have a long text/comment that was pushed from the ncc-wg to db-wg
14:10 < ElvisVelea> can I send it to you via e-mail?
14:10 < ElvisVelea> if yes, is your e-mail address maxim@ ?
14:11 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @elvis please rephrase, there is an ask from WG to keep questions short and quick
14:11 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @cynthia Thank you, I will read your question out when the presenter asks for questions.
14:11 < cynthia> thank you
14:13 < ElvisVelea> so, if I would be there I could talk at the microphone for minutes and minutes
14:13 < ElvisVelea> but if it's from a remote participant, the questions should be quick :)
14:14 < ElvisVelea> ok, I'll try to make it swifter
14:14 < RIPENCC_Maxim> thanks :)
14:16 < rhe-786> Hi Elvis, for what it's worth, at the WG Chairs lunch just now we all had a long discussion about keeping WGs to time (for local and remote participants). :-)
14:16 < cynthia> RIPENCC_Maxim: I would also like to add since it is somewhat related to NWI-9, for my case changing protocol is not really a solution due to NRTM being the standard and the software is already there.
14:20 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @cynthia I will read your comment together with your question
14:21 < cynthia> thank you
14:21 < RIPENCC_Maxim> presentation is coming to an end, Ed Shryane will ask for questions now
14:28 < ElvisVelea> Maxim, it will be still too long
14:28 < ElvisVelea> I'll send it by e-mail to the ncc, mostly are questions for them anyway
14:29 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @elvis sounds good!
14:31 < cynthia> a response to Job Snijders, I would be happy to help with proposing an NWI regarding NRTM
14:31 < job> cynthia, awsome
14:31 < cynthia> oh you are here :)
14:32 < RIPENCC_Maxim> great, otherwise i was gonna shout to Job that :)
14:32 < RIPENCC_Maxim> The presentation has ended
14:32 < RIPENCC_Maxim> Denis Walker has begun the presentation «Personal Data in the RIPE Database»
14:38 < cynthia> RIPENCC_Maxim: comment to Denis, another issue is that as my friend has first hand experience in, sometimes providers create person objects for customers and never delete them and they don't get automatically deleted due to there maybe being a /48 still assigned. My question would be, do you have any ideas like maybe a button to request deletion of person objects.
14:40 < ElvisVelea> Elvis Velea, V4Escrow LLC: The RIPE NCC forcefully creates a person object for admin-c and/or tech-c for every new LIR creation. That's a few thousands of objects per year. It should allow the usage of an existing object (person or role) and not create (soon to become) stale data. Can I ask someone at the NCC if there is any plan to revise this process?
14:41 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @cynthia Thank you, I will read your comment out when the presenter asks for questions
14:42 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @elvis Thank you, I will read your comment out when the presenter asks for questions
14:42 < vato> i agree with ElvisVelea - the option for an existing MNT is offered, but not other objects
14:43 < ElvisVelea> also, it creates duplicate objects when someone creates multiple LIRs, so they could at least recycle the objects they have already created for the previous LIR
14:44 < ElvisVelea> please add the second comment to my question, maxim
14:44 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @elvis i will
14:44 < ElvisVelea> thanks
14:45 < ElvisVelea> see, you inspired me to rewrite something that was in 20 lines... down to 2-3 :)
14:47 < ElvisVelea> Elvis Velea: I believe we do need a Task Force as just asking the working groups has not worked, getting answers to all those questions will either take too long or we will have to come up with a policy proposal that may not be what the community wants
14:47 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @elvis do you want to read that out too?
14:47 < ElvisVelea> yes :)
14:47 < ripe_421> Q: Is there currently a way to become a RIPE member (organization) without the personal data ending up in the RIPE DB? (Nick, independent)
14:48 < ElvisVelea> Nick, you may try to ask the NCC nicely in a follow-up e-mail to use your own objects, depending on the weather and the person you will reach they may accept it or not :)
14:48 < ElvisVelea> (no need to read this to the mic)
14:50 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @nick do you want your comment to be read out?
14:50 < ripe_421> yes please (nick)
14:50 < rhe-786> ripe_421: If you don't have any resources perhaps?
14:51 < ElvisVelea> rhe, nope. when the RIPE NCC creates the LIR it creates org, mnt, person, role(abuse-c)
14:52 < rhe-786> ElvisVelea: Ah, ta.
14:55 < ElvisVelea> funny bug, when they send the e-mail announcing creation of the objects, they link to the following maintainer (when one uses it's own)
14:55 < ElvisVelea>
14:55 < ElvisVelea> which is ncc's maintainer :)
14:58 < RIPENCC_Maxim> The presentation has ended
14:59 < RIPENCC_Maxim> Edward Shrayne has begun the presentation "Cleaning Up Locked Persons"
15:04 < ElvisVelea> I believe that updating the data to dummy data is the right thing to do. Then contacting the LIRs that have resources referencing these objects or cleanup the ones that are not referenced in resources.
15:04 < ElvisVelea> please read out my comment, Elvis Velea, V4Escrow LLC
15:04 < ElvisVelea> (when ed asks for questions)
15:04 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @elvis i will
15:08 < RIPENCC_Maxim> presentation is coming to an end, Ed Shryane will ask for questions now
15:09 < ElvisVelea> please add:
15:09 < ElvisVelea> the dummy data should be the last step, all the steps you mentioned sound great (except the one where you would contact each individual()
15:10 < RIPENCC_Maxim> @elvis got it
15:12 < RIPENCC_Maxim> The presentation has ended
15:12 < RIPENCC_Maxim> Nikolas Pediaditis has begun the presentation "Country Code Proposals"
15:19 < RIPENCC_Maxim> presentation is coming to an end
15:19 < RIPENCC_Maxim> Nikolas Pediaditis has asked for questions
15:21 < RIPENCC_Maxim> The presentation has ended
15:21 < RIPENCC_Maxim> Job Snijders has begun the presentation "RPKI Update"
15:29 < RIPENCC_Maxim> Job Snijders has asked for questions
15:30 < ripe_816> for the mic. (Sandy Murphy, Parsons). There was a proposal in the IETF SIDR working group, with one RIPE member as an author, about using RPKI signatures on RPSL objects. It even got published as an RFC (RFC7909 ). Did that ever get traction in RIPE? I've always wondered. (RFC title is "Securing Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) Objects with Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Signatures"
15:30 < vato> (Ian Dickinson, TFM) will the 7 day hold period include a recheck of a conflicting ROA? in case the ROA was removed before route(6) object removal?
15:31 < ripe_816> yikes. about Sandy Murphy, Parsons. That should be Sandy Murphy, individual.
15:32 < RIPENCC_Maxim> got it
15:36 < ripe_816> thank you, Maxim.
15:36 < RIPENCC_Maxim> you are welcome
15:36 < vato> thanks maxim