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/db-wg@ripe.net/
Proposal for db change
- Previous message (by thread): Proposal for db change
- Next message (by thread): Proposal for db change
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
John LeRoy Crain
John.Crain at ripe.net
Thu Apr 17 10:31:06 CEST 1997
davidk at isi.edu writes: * * John, * * I am afraid that the people that forget the "source:" field are the same * people that send a "source: RADB/MCI/whatever" to the RIPE database. You * will thus get more consistency problems if those people find out about * the possibility to omit the "source:" field. We are dealing with a set of * logical different databases and I think that it is better that people * *know* about this to avoid all the possible confusion about where their * data is stored and mistakes made by people that have to deal with more * databases then just the RIPE one. The letting them know would occur when they recieve warnings, or in the case of an incorrect "source:" have the update fail. People are clearly told that they need to put in a source field in the documents, the ones I see most are where people forget to add a source field, even if they know about the different databases. They just forget, a warning should be enough for these people to remember next time. * Another problem is that many people don't really like the automatic * fiddling with their objects which also makes it very hard to do things * (in the future) like signing objects by the user itself and storing them * as-is including the signature in the database. We do this already with some fields. inetnum gets changed if they send in ... inetnum: 194.0.1.0 or inetnum: 194.0.1.0/24 ... to inetnum: 194.0.1.0 - 194.0.1.255 The changed field can also be fiddled with, i.e if the date is in the future. These are both cases where the database needs a particular format and can therefor make the change. I would suggest that the "source:" could be a similar case. Is there a reason that I am missing why the "source:" differs from these when it comes to "signatures" etc. * On the other hand I really like this since I am a lazy person and I have * to admit that I have a local db running as my address book that does * exactly the thing that you propose ... Kind regards, John Crain RIPE NCC * * David K. * ---
- Previous message (by thread): Proposal for db change
- Next message (by thread): Proposal for db change
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]