This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
Proposal for extended syntax for the 'country:' attribute
- Previous message (by thread): Proposal for extended syntax for the 'country:' attribute
- Next message (by thread): Proposal for extended syntax for the 'country:' attribute
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Christian Panigl, ACOnet/UniVie +43 1 4065822-383
panigl at cc.univie.ac.at
Fri Jan 19 18:31:45 CET 1996
>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 17:34:17 MET >From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <Wilfried.Woeber at cc.univie.ac.at> > > I'm reluctant to let go of the well-established use of the country: > attribute. > > I'm looking forward to the time when we might have more flexible > selection criteria for the DB, and I think loosing country information > isn't a good idea. My idea was just because I think that it is already more important to which registry/provider a network belongs than to which country, unless you want to introduce Internet customs based on country borders ;-) Anyhow, of course it should be kept if there is any use for it ! But I don't think that introducing an additional provider *attribute* within the inetnum object will need the design-work for a provider *object* to be finished. The only thing that should be finished is the decision about the provider IDs which will be used as a DB key. Ok, let's finish this sidestep and find a solution for the country attribute. Regards Christian
- Previous message (by thread): Proposal for extended syntax for the 'country:' attribute
- Next message (by thread): Proposal for extended syntax for the 'country:' attribute
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]