[PDB Data Ownership-TF] draft "Data Ownership Policy Document"

Chris Caputo ccaputo at alt.net
Sat Mar 21 11:35:32 PDT 2020

Hi.  4 of the 5 previous approvers have approved this new version.  
(Arnold, William, Darrel, and myself.  Waiting on Terry.)


I am not comfortable setting the version number to 1.0 until all is said 
and done.  Doing so would defeat the purpose of the versioning system 
which also tracks approvers.  The document finally approved by the task 
force, whatever and whenever that is, should be set to be 1.0, but we are 
not there yet.


On Sat, 21 Mar 2020, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
> Chris, all,
> As this change came really on the last day of the Review Phase we 
> previously announced, best thing to do will be to give ample time to 
> everyone to review it properly and have the opportunity to object to it 
> if that is the case.
> But I also think we can do that during the Last Call, that we planned 
> previously. I would be happy to take silence as consent but since the 
> change came rather last minute and since you asked for support or 
> feedback in your previous mail I think it will be good to see the 
> support notes transparently on the list during this period too.
> My only comment is rather cosmetic and towards the look of the final 
> document: While the version of the document to the TF makes sense, the 
> final and public facing document should go out with version 1.0.
> Can you pls change that? 
> With all this, lets set the end of Last Call to 29 March. 
> Pls send support or objections to the list until this date.
> Assuming there is support for change as well as no objections to any 
> other parts of the document, after 29 March, we announce consensus on 
> it, seal the document and announce it.
> Kind regards
> Filiz
>       On 20 Mar 2020, at 19:40, Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net> wrote:
>       Arnold reached out to me about an issue with respect to embargoed
>       information at an IX.  Ie., a Network who has requested to not yet be
>       listed in the IX-F JSON export, but who then updates PeeringDB prior to
>       informing the IX the embargo can be listed.
>       Please see the below diff and provide feedback and/or support.  I will
>       also reach out directly to previous approvers.
>       The change indicates that data will remain unpublished until the
>       resolution is made by the IX ending the embargo so that its data begins to
>       match that provided by the Network.  Then when that happens, the data can
>       become published.  (An IX would end an embargo when a network reaches out
>       to it and says its connection is no longer confidential.)
>       Thanks,
>       Chris
>       ---
>       New draft: https://www.caputo.com/dotf/0.20200320.1-CC-AN.txt
>       Diff here at and at: https://www.caputo.com/dotf/0.20200317.4-CC-DB-TS-AN-WM_0.20200320.1-CC-AN.diff.txt
>       --- 0.20200317.4-CC-DB-TS-AN-WM.txt    2020-03-17 23:30:20.401784614 +0000
>       +++ 0.20200320.1-CC-AN.txt    2020-03-20 16:37:33.379968769 +0000
>       @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>       PeeringDB Data Ownership Policy Document
>       Date: TBD
>       -Version: 0.20200317.4-CC-DB-TS-AN-WM
>       +Version: 0.20200320.1-CC-AN
>       1) Background
>       @@ -688,6 +688,11 @@
>       Internet Exchange, as a means of expediting resolution and decreasing the
>       burdens on the Admin Committee.
>       +It is understood that an IX-F Member Import may be incomplete, such as due
>       +to an information embargo requirement. If a conflict arises due to new
>       +data provided by a Network, the above conflict resolution recommendations
>       +are appropriate.
>       +
>       6.2) ixfac & netfac
>       A conflict may arise in which a Facility with an actual owner disputes the
>       --
>       DataOwnership-TF mailing list
>       DataOwnership-TF at lists.peeringdb.com
>       https://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataownership-tf

More information about the DataOwnership-TF mailing list