[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Wg-rms] Stepping down from co-chair role
Hi Tim,
Everyone (well, most) accept change when it is necessary, but a lot of
people (two on this list so far and another couple at the member
meeting) would possibly argue that this particular forced change is not
high on their list of priorities right now.
I understand the priorities of members are to sustain their business
and to not have to allocate unavailable resources to work that is
barely a bleep on the radar.
I would like to say that this is not a forced change, at the
culmination of the working group the members will have decided through
rough consensus what is to be promoted.
My view is that this policy is a reaction to changes happening in the
industry, changes that may require a different paradigm to managing
your APNIC data. Perhaps a realisation and admittance that after many
unchanging years the systems will be under serious strain both
operationally and procedurally if we fail to plan and adapt to the
coming issues.
I agree, and maybe the Secretariat could explain why private records
were introduced without modifying the tools they provide and train
members to use to update whois.
The privacy policy was set before the membership and adopted as policy
in the consensus process. The tools to do so where introduced in
MyAPNIC and due to the inherent insecurities in email "private" records
were considered to valuable for email based processes.
OK, my bad. I seem to remember four or five meetings ago a
demonstration
(Sanjaya?) of a scripted MyAPNIC interface that was under
development/nearing completion. Any reason this has been abandoned when
from memory it provided pretty much everything this proposed new system
is going to provide?
After analysis it was found that the approach was deemed to be costly
and unsustainable. A new approach to provide this functionality was
found in the XML/REST model "webservices" as presented in APNIC 22.
RIPE maintain the whois code and APNIC modify to suit objects in our
region. I don't see any compelling reason to spend APNIC member funds
on
reinventing the wheel.
I would rather see member funds used to complete MyAPNIC, with a
scripted interface for updating whois, and, a little off topic, please
please please the IPv4 request form finally integrated into MyAPNIC! :)
Noted.
And I concur, a better use of funds is to build out the XML/REST model.
Unfortunately there are two very different worlds. The XML/REST model
and email updates. The former (in MyAPNIC etc) is already far more
featured than the latter. Trying to fit that functionality into an
email path will be time consuming, expensive and problematic.
If you were given functional tools to aid in transition, would that be
helpful?
Many good points Jas. I don't believe though that a new system
providing
this functionality and auto-dbm need to be mutually exclusive.
I guess it may be possible for them to coexist. I think a question
about appropriate use of member resources to sustain an ageing
inflexible interface should be asked. Perhaps questions in a security
context would also be sensible.
Terry
--
Terry Manderson email: terry@apnic.net
Network Operations Manager, APNIC sip: info@voip.apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
