<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Dear all,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bringing this to your attention again: </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/627" class="">https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/627</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There seems to be support from Product Com as well as some of the TF members for it. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thoughts?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Filiz</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br class="">Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:18:13 +0000 (UTC)<br class="">From: Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:ccaputo@alt.net" class="">ccaputo@alt.net</a>><br class="">Reply-To: Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:ccaputo-dated-1588965493.0ca23d@alt.net" class="">ccaputo-dated-1588965493.0ca23d@alt.net</a>><br class="">To: DTF PeeringDB <<a href="mailto:dataownership-tf@lists.peeringdb.com" class="">dataownership-tf@lists.peeringdb.com</a>><br class="">Subject: Re: [PDB Data Ownership-TF] IXP assignment IP address (netixlan)<br class=""> ownership (was: conditions for being listed in a facility)<br class=""><br class="">On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, Arnold Nipper wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 09.01.2020 19:02, Chris Caputo wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I believe the importer needs to perform an additional task:<br class=""><br class=""> - populate/update a new database table, potentially known as <br class=""> netixlan_ixp, which represents the IXP viewpoint.<br class=""><br class="">and once that is implemented, it can cease removing conflicted assignments <br class="">unless a network has opted for IX-F JSON automatic updates.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">There is no reason to do so. See #585 [0] which is ready for implementation.<br class=""></blockquote>[...]<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">[0] <a href="https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/585" class="">https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/585</a><br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Arnold, #585 has the word "Interim" in its very title. I am proposing a <br class="">longer term solution that does not put the repeated burden of resolution <br class="">of ownership issues on the Admin Committee. I shared my proposal with the <br class="">PC and got positive feedback, so I have now created an issue for it:<br class=""><br class=""> <a href="https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/627" class="">https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/627</a><br class=""><br class="">Chris<br class="">-- <br class="">DataOwnership-TF mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:DataOwnership-TF@lists.peeringdb.com" class="">DataOwnership-TF@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br class="">https://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataownership-tf<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>