[DBWG] route-object auto-created from a ROA

Mon May 6 07:46:08 UTC 2019

Hi,

We were too optimistic when we said we would deliver in Q1. The activity plan was later prepared and projects to improve on some internal tools had to be completed first to support operations.

We are working to slot in the DBWG items on the AIS agenda. In the meantime, here are the requirements and specifications we have drafted:

====
MyAFRINIC Interface to manage IRR objects and ROAs
There have been requests from some members to have an easier way to manage both RPKI and IRR. Some ROAs require corresponding IRR objects and some IRR objects require corresponding ROAs. This project aims at providing a centralized system built inside MyAFRINIC that will allow members to better manage their IRR objects as well as securing them with RPKI.
For a first release, the implementation will focus on Route and Route6 objects and ROAs. The plan is to include the following user stories :
User stories

#
Title
User Story
Importance
Notes/Specs
1.	New ROA	As a member, I want to be able to create a ROA and be able to create Route/(6) objects for the prefixes that are covered in the ROA	Must Have	
When submitting the create ROA form, the system should check whether there are Route/(6) objects for the prefixes covered in the ROA exist in the WHOIS.
If Route/(6) objects do not exist for all or some of the covered prefixes, prompt the user to choose whether he wants to create them.
Give user a form to with additional fields for the Route/(6) objects.
Create as many Route/(6) objects as required bease on the prefix length
2.	Existing ROAs	As a member, when I view an existing ROA, I want to know whether corresponding Route/(6) objects exist, and if not, given the form to allow me to create them	Must Have	 
3.	Revoking ROAs	As a member, if I want to revoke a ROA I want to have the possibility of deleting my Route/(6) objects as well if I wish to.	Must Have	 
4.	View Route objects	As a member, I want to be able to see all my Route objects	Must Have	 
5.	View Route6 objects	As a member, I want to be able to see all my Route6 objects	Must Have	 
6.	Create Route object	As a member, I want to create a Route object and be asked if I want to generate a ROA to cover this Route object	Must Have	
Need to check if the member's engine is activated
7.	Create Route6 object	As a member, I want to create a Route6 object and be asked if I want to generate a ROA to cover this Route6 object	Must Have	
Need to check if the member's engine is activated
8.	Delete Route object	As a member, I want to be able to delete my Route object and asked if I wish to revoke the corresponing ROA if there is one	Must Have	 
9.	Delete Route(6) object	As a member, I want to be able to delete my Route6 object and asked if I wish to revoke the corresponing ROA if there is one	Must Have	 
10.	Edit Route object	As a member, I want to be able to delete my Route object	Must Have	 
11.	Edit Route6 object	As a member, I want to be able to delete my Route6 object	Must Have	 
12.	Inconsistency report	As a member, I want to be able to view all my Route/(6) objects that are not covered by a ROA.	Must Have	 

====

Please give your recommendations.

Kind regards,

Yogesh Chadee
Applications Unit Manager, AFRINIC Ltd. <https://www.afrinic.net/>+230 403 5100

> On 4 May 2019, at 4:08 AM, Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:
> 
> On 15 Apr 2019, at 14:03, Yogesh Chadee wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> We are very sorry we could not do it in Q1. We are fine tuning the functional requirements and we will validate them during the DBWG meeting, AIS 19. If all goes well, the implementation shall be in Q3.
>> 
>> We hope to see you there.
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> first, let me say how completely underwhelmed i am, by this response.  after zero (0) feedback for six (6) months, the first response that we hear from afrinic is :  “oh, sorry.  nope, we miscalculated”.  and, to top it off, *only* after you were prompted, and not of your own volition.
> 
> a *reasonable* response would have been, at some point during the six month process, when you realised that you could not commit to the deadline (that *you* set!), to admit to this, and to explain what the hold-up is.  instead, we’re pointed to a random date in some indeterminate future;  with a vague reference that a specification will be done at an undefined “DBWG meeting” - which does not even exist in the event calendar!
> 
> this is not what we expect from afrinic…
> 
> for a start, if you have issues with functional requirements, *raise them here*, in *this* working group.  because not everyone, is going to be at AIS-19.  feel free to raise the issues piecemeal;  it’s better, and easier, to focus on a small series of problems, than to try to solve everything at once.
> 
> how about coming clean with something like:
> # this is what we thought initially
> # this is what caused our delays
> # this is where we are now;  what we’re stuck on
> # this is why we actually think we’re be in a position to deliver in Q3.
> 
> .. because, frankly, right now, there’s nothing that stops you from replaying that “we need another 6 months” message, ad infinitum ..
> 
> 
> 
>>> On 31 Mar 2019, at 7:37 PM, Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:
>>>> On 19 Oct 2018, at 07:58, Avinash GOKHOOL <avinash at afrinic.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks a lot for the invaluable feedback.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To answer your question, based on our resource availability and workload, we are planning to have this available during Q1 of 2019.
>>> 
>>> hi,
>>> 
>>> i saw a tweet about the different RPKI options available via the various RIRs, and remembered this outstanding FQ.
>>> 
>>> any news?  :-)
>>> 
>>> —n.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DBWG mailing list
> DBWG at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/dbwg/attachments/20190506/4cf2998c/attachment-0001.html>