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

[Arnold Nipper]

On 08.01.2020 19:06, Chris Caputo wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>> On 08.01.2020 01:05, Chris Caputo wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last, but not least we should develop robust procedures in case
>>>> there is conflict.
>>>
>>> Arnold, I am trying to understand your perspective.  Do you think we
>>> need only document things and not actually make any decisions about
>>> data ownership?  The database schema and database relationships are a
>>> no brainer, while the complexity of what to do or what to present
>>> when there is a conflict, is why we are here.
>>>
>>
>> IMO we need a document describing the records/fields in detail (incl.
>> perhaps where the information is coming from and who is the trusted source).
>>
>> In case we are able to define a single ownership for a record/field,
>> fine. Otherwise we should define a robust procedure how to resolve
>> conflicts.
> 
> Dear All:
> 
> The fundamental conflict which spawned this effort is the differing 
> perspectives of an IXP and a network with respect to IP assignment at an 
> IXP and whether or how to present or how to handle the differing data.
> 

More precisely, the conflict arose from auto-removal of netixlan records
and not notifying the networks when doing so.

> Is there any reason not to try to first solve that (IMHO most significant) 
> question?
> 

#539 [0] and #585 [1] both address this question.


 * #539 proposes an additional boolean field `operational`. Esp. larger
networks want to announce their presence at IXPs well in advance, even
if they are not operational.

 * #585 copes with cases where the old IX-F importer would delete
netixlan records. Now a support ticket with all parties involved is
opened to resolve the conflict.

IMO It definitely would help if the TF comes up with a recommendation
who is the (trusted) source of information for IP addresses.


Cheers
Arnold

[0] https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/539
[1} https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/585

-- 
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/20200108/aea630dc/attachment.sig>