[PDB Data Ownership-TF] IXP assignment IP address (netixlan) ownership

[Darrell Budic]

Catching up on this, I’m also in favor. 

Overall, I’ve been leaning toward a structure to resolve these conflicts, and allow the involved parties to resolve them, in a simi-automated fashion. If we’re still debating how to handle facilities presence, this looks like something that could be extended to that as well…

  -Darrell


> On Feb 4, 2020, at 6:24 PM, Terry Sweetser <Terry.Sweetser at ix.asn.au> wrote:
> 
> Put me down for "For"
> 
> Regards,
> Terry Sweetser
> General Manager, IX Australia
> Terry.Sweetser at ix.asn.au
> Mobile/WhatsApp: +61455067119
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DataOwnership-TF <dataownership-tf-bounces at lists.peeringdb.com> On Behalf Of Chris Caputo
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 February 2020 10:20 AM
> To: DTF PeeringDB <dataownership-tf at lists.peeringdb.com>
> Subject: Re: [PDB Data Ownership-TF] IXP assignment IP address (netixlan) ownership
> 
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020, Chris Caputo wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>>> On 29.01.2020 04:33, Chris Caputo wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, William Marantz wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:27 AM Arnold Nipper <arnold at peeringdb.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Now it starts to make sense to me as well. If you could also 
>>>>>> take
>>>>>> #539 into account we should have a made a huge step forward.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I support that "already published" modification to your proposal 
>>>>> Chris. I totally forgot about that use case and great idea.
>>>> 
>>>> Excellent!  Ok, I spent a bunch of time today trying to pull #539, 
>>>> #585, and #627 together in some coherent way.  Please review the 
>>>> below and let me know of mistakes.  Maybe we can beat this around 
>>>> into something useful.
>>> 
>>> Looks very elaborated to me, Chris. Very well done! Thank you for 
>>> your time and effort. I don't have the time to go through the 
>>> pseudocode in detail, but I didn't find obvious flaws.
>>> 
>>> How to proceed? Open a new issue with the pseudocode? As this is 
>>> very well specced out it could be implemented right away. I would 
>>> love to see it happening with the next release!
>> 
>> Thank you for your support.  I do think this would be ambitious for 
>> the next release as I expect it to involve some considerable dev time.
>> 
>> I think the next step is to have others on the task force chime in.  
>> If we can get the pseudocode approved by the task force that will be a 
>> giant step forward.  I'll then make a new GitHub issue announcing task 
>> force support and encourage the Product Committee to approve it.
>> 
>> Tally so far:  (please correct or add yourself as appropriate or reach 
>> out to me directly and I'll track the votes/revisions)
> [...]
>> 
>> PS: I've attached the pseudocode as a .c file in case anyone wants to 
>> view it in an editor with syntax highlighting, or make edits.  I find 
>> that really helps with clarity.  Diffs welcome!
> 
> Update...
> 
> For:
> - Chris Caputo
> - Arnold Nipper
> - William Marantz
> - Patrick Gilmore
> 
> Against:
> -
> 
> Abstain:
> -
> 
> Please make time this week, such as before the Thursday call, to review and consider letting me know if you support.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Chris
> -- 
> DataOwnership-TF mailing list
> DataOwnership-TF at lists.peeringdb.com
> https://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataownership-tf