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

[Cedrick Adrien Mbeyet]

Dear dbwg,


Referring to the previous email from my colleague Simon.

We indeed delayed the deletion of the lame records for multiple reason
among them the absence of a second nodes. We had some security
challenges that needed to be addressed before being able to plan the
second nodes.

We do apologize for the delay on the second node implementation and rest
tune as deployment will be scheduled very soon. And usual, announced on
the usual channels.

Thanks and regards,


-- 
_______________________________________________________________
Cedrick Adrien Mbeyet                                           
IT Infrastructure Unit Manager, AFRINIC Ltd.
t:  +230 403 5100 / 403 5115 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net
facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia
______________________________________________________

On 07/09/2020 16:59, Simon Seruyinda wrote:

> Hi Frank,

>

> The e-mail attribute was made mandatory in July 2012.

> I have done a quick check in the database and we have 1048 person objects without the email attribute.

> Most of these objects belong to legacy resource holders and were imported into the database during the initial setup.

> Many are referenced in different objects. Below are some stats regarding number of objects that are referencing these person objects as admin-c,tech-c or zone-c.

>

> zone-c:

> ===============

> 51 domain objects

>

> tech-c

> ===============

> as-block	248

> as-set	11

> domain	35

> inetnum	574

> mntner	60

> org	162

> role	7

> route-set	6

>

> admin-c:

> ==============

> as-block	248

> as-set	11

> aut-num	2

> domain	49

> inet6num	1

> inetnum	731

> mntner	71

> org	137

> role	4

> route-set	6

>

> There is an ongoing project internally focused on contacting these legacy holders in order to update their contact details in the database. 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.

>

> 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.

>

> Regards;

> Simon

>

>> On 6 Sep 2020, at 22:22, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:

>>

>> Hi AfriNIC staff,

>>

>> since when is the 'e-mail:' attribute for 'person' objects mandatory?

>>

>> I just found

>> nic-hdl:        SE1-AFRINIC

>> that does not have an email.

>>

>> It's got a GENERATED maintainer, and I'm also wondering how these new

>> maintainer credentials were communicated to the "person".

>>

>> Yes, I don't want to rely on 'changed:' attributes.

>>

>> Staff:

>> How many 'person' objects don't have an 'e-mail:' attribute ?

>>

>>

>> [slowly getting to another issue....]

>>

>> Why did I get to check this person object at all....?

>>

>> Because in a domain object it is

>> tech-c:         SE1-AFRINIC

>> zone-c:         SE1-AFRINIC

>>

>>

>> Also, the domain object is since "2020-02-02 02:02"

>> ( nice time stamp!! ;-) ) marked as all 'nserver' being *lame*.

>> So when is it meant to get deleted?

>> I hope we're not waiting for the tech-c or zone-c to respond to the

>> email, which we could not send, because the 'person' doesn't have an

>> email address?

>>

>> But what really got me to check the domain object:

>>

>> domain:

>> 0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.8.f.3.4.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa

>>

>> yes, it's a bit long. a reverse DNS delegation for a /128

>>

>> This is probably "legal".

>> But:

>> a) if disputable 'usefulness', and

>> b) I see "tremendous' potential for growth in the DB - in a bad way

>>

>>

>> All, Staff and WG:

>>

>> should creation of domain objects be limited to certain prefix sizes?

>>

>>

>> Thanks,

>> Frank

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> DBWG mailing list

>> DBWG at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20200910/d56d82d4/attachment.html>