[PDB Data Ownership-TF] conditions for being listed in a facility

Arnold Nipper arnold at peeringdb.com
Tue Jan 7 12:01:35 PST 2020

On 07.01.2020 20:00, Chris Caputo wrote:

> I just posted the following to the Data Ownership Policy Document, based 
> on discussion in today's conf.  Feedback welcome.

I made my remarks as comments in the document. Just to repeat.

Adding a flag FacilityPriorApproval (default FALSE) completely
contradicts the current philosophy of PeeringDB as we even allow
suggestion of facilities. These suggested facilities don't have admin
users, hence no one who can set a flag.

PC intentionally added the "SUGGEST" feature to make the DB more useful.

Furthermore, most of the colocation operators allow subleasing. Hence,
in general, they will not be able to decide whether a network is at
their facility or not. This is the big difference between a colocation
and an IX.

Arnold Nipper
email: arnold at peeringdb.com
mobile: +49 172 2650958

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/dataownership-tf/attachments/20200107/643d4a9d/attachment.sig>

More information about the DataOwnership-TF mailing list