Subject: rps-dist respin

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 16:04:26 -0400

I'm updating rps-dist.  The minutes of our last meeting contained:

   Curtis suggested that (upon request from RIPE and ARIN) the people and
   role objects should not be distributed. The main reason is the
   spammers. Instead queries should be referred to the appropriate
   repositories. Also for attributes with email values, a nic handle can
   be used to overcome privacy issue of emails. For legacy objects, the
   emails can be stripped out before forwarding.

   Harald did not liked the fact that the standard specified which
   classes are not distributed. WG reached a consensus on allowing
   selected classes not to be distributed, but leaving the decision of
   which classes are not distributed to each registry. However, the
   policy objects have to be distributed. There was also a per object
   field, settable by the user, to allow redistribution or not. It was
   objected by the WG.

The slides I presented at the meeting had:

  Requested Changes:

    .  Add a section addressing the privacy of contact information.

      - The people and role objects are not distributed to other
	registries.  Any query must be referred to the authoritative
	registry where local restrictions on redistribution of
	contact information can be enforced.

      - The option is needed to use NIC handles in attributes that now
        require and email address.  Some examples are the changed and
        notify attributes.  This will allow signing of an object and
        not reuire removal of any attribute.  Users must put in a NIC
        handle to maintain privacy.

      - Older data can have contact information stripped before being
        redistributed on a one time basis, with the integrity field
        marked as legacy.

AFAIK these are the only requested changes to rps-dist.

I have added an appendix entitled "Privacy of Contact Information".

   The routing registries have contained contact information.  The
   redistribution of this contact information has been a delicate issue
   an in some countries has legal implications.

   The person and role objects contain contact information.  These
   objects are referenced by NIC-handles.  There are some attributes such
   as the "changed" and "notify" attributes that require an email
   address.  All of the fields that currently require an email address
   must also accept a NIC-handle.

   The person and role objects should not be redistributed by default.
   If a submission contains an email address in a field such as a changed
   field rather than a NIC-handle the submitter should be aware that they
   are allowing that email address to be redistributed and forfeiting any
   privacy.  Repositories which do not feel that prior warnings of this
   forfeiture are sufficient legal protection should reject the
   submission requesting that a NIC-handle be used.

   Queries to role and person objects arriving at a mirror must be
   referred to the authoritative repository where whatever
   authentication, restrictions, or limitations deemed appropriate by
   that repository can be enforced directly.

   Software should make it possible to restrict the redistribution of
   other entire object types as long as those object types are not
   required for the authorization of additions of other object types.  It
   is not possible to redistribute objects with attributes removed or
   altered since this would invalidate the submitter's signature and make
   subsequent authentication checks impossible.  Repositories should not
   redistribute a subset of the objects of a given type.

   When redistributing legacy data, contact information in attributes
   such as "changed" and "notify" should be stripped to maintain privacy.
   The "integrity" attribute on these objects should already be set to
   "legacy" indicating that their origin is questionable, so the issue of
   not being able to recheck signatures is not as significant.

I've also filled in the security section.

Curtis