APNIC 14 DB SIG Report Xing Li 2002-09-06

Policy Policy Policy

Policy Outcomes Proposal to suspend MAIL-FROM passed 9 vs. 0 (25) Protecting unmaintained objects will be discussed in the mailing-list 2 vs. 0 (25) AS Number Database Registration Proposal will be discussed in the mailing-list (by author)

Authentication NONE MAIL-FROM CRYPT-PW PGP-KEY Will be removed No protection MAIL-FROM E-mail Very weak protection CRYPT-PW Unix encrypted password PGP-KEY Public key algorithm protection Will be removed http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2725.txt

Implementation Proposed Timeline 30 Sept 2002: Public announcement & mails to contacts of affected maintainers 30 Oct 2002: 1st reminders 30 Nov 2002: 2nd reminders 17 Dec 2002: cutover Affected MAIL-FROM objects replaced with CRYPT-PW generated by APNIC

Protecting unmaintained objects inetnum object range Maintainer APNIC range APNIC-HM last choice APNIC member range MAINT-MEMBER 1st choice customer range MAINT-NULL

AS Number Database Registration Proposal The “import”/”export” fields MUST NOT be disclosed by whois database. Whois database means registry information, not “IRR information”. Route administration information should be disclosed by IRR databse. P2 APNIC is planning to merge whois and IRR database system to 1 system using RIPEv3. Merging database is a good idea. One aut-num object in RIPEv3 has two aspects of registry database and IRR which are separate things. It is confusing. We propose that APNIC should define a new object for managing AS number assignment. Finally, I would like to try to summarize this presentation, and rising up what I would like to propose. The first point is that the route administration information especially “import”/”export” must not be disclosed by whois database for registry information. It means that operational information such as route administration information should be managed and disclosed appropriately by IRR.

collaboration cut over Passed mailing list services mailing list