[PDB Data Ownership-TF] draft "Data Ownership Policy Document"
ccaputo at alt.net
Sat Mar 21 11:36:20 PDT 2020
^Darrel^Darrell - apologies
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020, Chris Caputo wrote:
> 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 The change indicates that data will remain unpublished until the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