Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC11) Database Registration

[leo vegoda <leo@ripe.net>]

Hi Izumi,

Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> Thanks Nakagawa-san for listing up the contents.
> I think all the major points are coverered but added a few comments.
>
> > - Definition of Database
> >    In this policy, "database" means the Whois Databases of RIRs and NIRs.
> >    At present, APNIC, RIPE-NCC, ARIN and LACNIC have databases.
> This situation may change over time with new RIRs and NIRs providing
> the database, so how about we simply refer to them as RIR/NIR database
> without specifying the organizations?
In another message you wrote:

> we need to know who to contact in cases of network
> abuse, and if a particular range is delegated to a downstream ISP,
> then, that information should be made available to the public.
>
> Then again, it could be argued that as long as LIRs look after abuse
> complaints, then they do not need to register allocations for their
> downstream.

But, it has also been argued that the phrase "registry database" should 
not include LIRs' databases (or their downstream customers' databases).

If this is the case it appears that these guidelines are expecting an 
LIR to handle all abuse complaints on behalf of their customers but 
requires them to register their customers' assignments (as well as 
allocations) anyway. Is this consistent?

If this is the case I think that this document (or another document) 
should give a (set of) reason(s) for requiring registration of 
assignments in a public whois database.

I realise that some people might feel that doing so is stating the 
obvious. That should not necessarily be seen as a bad thing. By doing so 
and writing down the obvious we ensure that we know why a decision was 
made in a particular way when the decision is reviewed in the future.

Regards,

--
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services Manager