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

[Chris Caputo]

^Darrel^Darrell - apologies

Chris

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.)
> 
>   https://www.caputo.com/dotf/0.20200320.2-CC-AN-WM-DB.txt
> 
> 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.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 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