[DBWG] person without email... and domain object size

[Nishal Goburdhan]

On 7 Sep 2020, at 14:59, Simon Seruyinda wrote:


> There is an ongoing project internally focused on contacting these 

> legacy holders in order to update their contact details in the 

> database.


then i hear the words “ongoing project” i am always tempted to ask:  
“what’s the expected completion date for this?”   :-)
even better, it would really be fantastic if you (afrinic) could list 
your ongoing projects and completion dates, as activities on your 
website to allow us to follow your progress, and, where possible to 
supply aid as needed.



> Another activity, under the scope of the whois business rules 

> inconsistencies is also planned to get the emails updated for any 

> resource members who may be having no emails in the any of their 

> person objects. Incases where efforts to get in touch with the 

> resource holder proves futile, a temporary measure using AFRINIC’s 

> placeholder email accounts is undertaken. These activities are 

> expected to decrease the number significantly.

>

> With regards to the lame delegation handling, we are not doing 

> deletion yet since we are running only one node to do the lame 

> delegation checks. Once the second node is setup, we shall begin the 

> deletion otherwise for now we run the risk of a few false positives.


as co-author, i recall that the recommendation made to afrinic staff was 
three months, before deletion.  that was not put into the policy though, 
as it was seen as an operational issue, and we thought that best left to 
afrinic staff.  iirc, it _was_ in a separate document that was presented 
to you for implementation guidance.

still, that was many moons ago.  i am quite surprised, disappointed, and 
a little annoyed, to hear that in those many moons, a simple VM could 
not have been procured from any of the many VM providers to do this.  i 
mean;  you *need* to test this from outside your infrastructure, right, 
and so it’s not like: “we were waiting for an internal project to 
deploy X was over … “ is a viable excu^W reason for the delay.

perhaps you can update us (including an ETA) during the upcoming, but 
still unannounced, DBWG meeting.



> Regarding the rdns objects size, thanks for bringing this up for 

> discussion. Currently we have a limit for IPv4 set to minimum of /24, 

> but there is no limit implemented for IPv6, so it will go up to 128.

> I agree this could lead to unnecessary db growth and i think a limit 

> should be set. Input from the DBWG members on what would be the 

> appropriate minimum would highly be appreciated.


i would prefer that you not set a hard-coded limit (as dbwg policy) but, 
instead, respect the minimum ipv6 allocation size that you make 
available to a member.  that maintains coherence in policy.  today, that 
number is a /48 for an EU-PI.  but, should that change to, say, /64, 
then, i expect that your db *MUST* (2119) allow delegations at /64 
level, at least for the particular /64 assignment/allocation.

i would support you limiting delegations to match 
assignments/allocations.  that’s a little more work to write an 
additional check, but is better consistency.

-n.