[ARIN-consult] ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 71, Issue 10

Paul McElhaney Paul.McElhaney at twdb.texas.gov
Mon Aug 6 12:02:32 EDT 2018 

Your link is incorrect on the first.  The second works.

I highly recommend that you do not use underscores or spaces in your file names.  Underscores get hidden by the underline which users think it is a space.    Use hypens.

-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-consult <arin-consult-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of arin-consult-request at arin.net
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 10:50 AM
To: arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 71, Issue 10

Send ARIN-consult mailing list submissions to
	arin-consult at arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	arin-consult-request at arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	arin-consult-owner at arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-consult digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and
      Point of Contact (POC) Records (Owen DeLong)
   2. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and
      Point of Contact (POC) Records (John Curran)
   3. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and
      Point of Contact (POC) Records (Owen DeLong)
   4. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and
      Point of Contact (POC) Records (Joe Provo)
   5. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and
      Point of Contact (POC) Records (Owen DeLong)
   6. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and
      Point of Contact (POC) Records (Peter Harrison)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 12:34:37 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Cc: Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>, "<arin-consult at arin.net>"
	<arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned
	Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records
Message-ID: <C7A04C87-EABC-4A88-B973-B0BA4CA1B1CB at delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8

It seems to me that the following statements are true:

1.	If an POC record is has not been linked from any ORG or RESOURCE type records for more than
	12 months, then said POC record can be considered orphaned.

2.	It would be reasonable to make an effort to contact said POC, giving said POC 60 days notice that
	their record is orphaned and pending deletion.

3.	After 60 days elapses if ARIN does not receive some form of response indicating that there is a
	reason to maintain said orphaned POC, it should be safe to remove it, relegating it to who?s
	for all eternity.

I encourage ARIN to enact this or a similar process for removing orphaned POC records.

Thanks,

Owen



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:11:19 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: "<arin-consult at arin.net>" <arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned
	Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records
Message-ID: <BA9EA50B-17C4-412A-9A48-2E3E37433623 at arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 5 Aug 2018, at 3:34 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> ...
> 2.	It would be reasonable to make an effort to contact said POC, giving said POC 60 days notice that
> 	their record is orphaned and pending deletion.
> 
> 3.	After 60 days elapses if ARIN does not receive some form of response indicating that there is a
> 	reason to maintain said orphaned POC, it should be safe to remove it, relegating it to who?s
> 	for all eternity.

Owen - 

?If ARIN does not receive some form of response? is rather vague?  

Can we both clarify and streamline the processing to effect that ARIN makes a reasonable effort to contact the POC, and then 60 days later, if the POC still meets orphaned criteria AND has not been updated in the any manner, then it is safe to archive and remove?

This provides that a party notified can associate the record with some resources or simply update it the record and it will remain in the database.

Thoughts?
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 07:37:54 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Cc: "<arin-consult at arin.net>" <arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned
	Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records
Message-ID: <27058DF3-664D-4F9F-B1BC-58DB0607F957 at delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8



> On Aug 6, 2018, at 06:11, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Aug 2018, at 3:34 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> 2.    It would be reasonable to make an effort to contact said POC, giving said POC 60 days notice that
>>    their record is orphaned and pending deletion.
>> 
>> 3.    After 60 days elapses if ARIN does not receive some form of response indicating that there is a
>>    reason to maintain said orphaned POC, it should be safe to remove it, relegating it to who?s
>>    for all eternity.
> 
> Owen - 
> 
> ?If ARIN does not receive some form of response? is rather vague?  
> 
> Can we both clarify and streamline the processing to effect that ARIN makes a reasonable effort to contact the POC, and then 60 days later, if the POC still meets orphaned criteria AND has not been updated in the any manner, then it is safe to archive and remove?

That?s fine with me. My intent wasn?t to design the details of the process, but to leave that open to staff to fill in such that it fits into ARIN?s current business practices and processes. 

What you describe would definitely be an acceptable implementation of the intent I was trying to convey. 

> This provides that a party notified can associate the record with some resources or simply update it the record and it will remain in the database.

It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some form of change, but if there?s some reason not to permit that, I?m not strongly tied to the idea. 

Owen




------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 11:30:59 -0400
From: Joe Provo <jzp-arin-consult at rsuc.gweep.net>
To: "<arin-consult at arin.net>" <arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned
	Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records
Message-ID: <20180806153022.GA48838 at gweep.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


[personal hat on]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
[snip]
> It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC
> ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some
> form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that,
> I???m not strongly tied to the idea.

Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration)
nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised.
I think that's a big win for aliveness detection.

Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the
larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that
timescale. Not super wedded to that detail.

JC previously wrote:
> Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one 
> reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact 
> same organization name with another of the 454,090). 
> While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, 
> this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their 
> SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, 
> which in turn reduces orphaned records.

I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation 
on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices.
As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical
process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable
*after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course?
It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction
would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently 
here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection 
sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after 
transactions have been completed and forgotten.

Cheers!

Joe

-- 
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling 


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 08:44:43 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
To: jzp-arin-consult at rsuc.gweep.net
Cc: "<arin-consult at arin.net>" <arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned
	Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records
Message-ID: <9D7DB88E-A59F-4F84-918D-60BFA6B4EE1F at delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii

+1

Owen

> On Aug 6, 2018, at 08:30, Joe Provo <jzp-arin-consult at rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> [personal hat on]
> 
>> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> [snip]
>> It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC
>> ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some
>> form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that,
>> I???m not strongly tied to the idea.
> 
> Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration)
> nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised.
> I think that's a big win for aliveness detection.
> 
> Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the
> larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that
> timescale. Not super wedded to that detail.
> 
> JC previously wrote:
>> Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one 
>> reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact 
>> same organization name with another of the 454,090). 
>> While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, 
>> this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their 
>> SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, 
>> which in turn reduces orphaned records.
> 
> I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation 
> on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices.
> As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical
> process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable
> *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course?
> It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction
> would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently 
> here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection 
> sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after 
> transactions have been completed and forgotten.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Joe
> 
> -- 
> Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
> Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 08:49:33 -0700
From: Peter Harrison <peter at colovore.com>
To: "<arin-consult at arin.net>" <arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned
	Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records
Message-ID:
	<CAN61F1zXfdJrhd9XoYTCmb7GYe0jFWoCw5JJBVvShEcscthO8w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

+1 on "POC validation at time of orphaning"

What would the question be on the validation?

   1. "Do you want to remain an orphan?"
   2. "Who do you want as your new parent?"
   3. "We're going to delete you, OK?"

Some either/or combination of the above. 2 and 3 maybe?


Peter

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> Owen
>
> > On Aug 6, 2018, at 08:30, Joe Provo <jzp-arin-consult at rsuc.gweep.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > [personal hat on]
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC
> >> ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some
> >> form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that,
> >> I???m not strongly tied to the idea.
> >
> > Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration)
> > nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised.
> > I think that's a big win for aliveness detection.
> >
> > Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the
> > larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that
> > timescale. Not super wedded to that detail.
> >
> > JC previously wrote:
> >> Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one
> >> reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact
> >> same organization name with another of the 454,090).
> >> While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc,
> >> this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their
> >> SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records,
> >> which in turn reduces orphaned records.
> >
> > I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation
> > on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices.
> > As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical
> > process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable
> > *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course?
> > It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction
> > would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently
> > here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection
> > sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after
> > transactions have been completed and forgotten.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > --
> > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
> > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Consult
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180806/ef24b537/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
ARIN-consult mailing list
ARIN-consult at arin.net
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult


------------------------------

End of ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 71, Issue 10
********************************************

More information about the ARIN-consult mailing list