Proposal for db change

Wilfried,

Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet writes:
> 
>   One of the reasons why we insist on a source: field is the dream(?) of
>   eventually having a system where we can submit updates to our
>   local/favourite/whatever registry (db update mechanism) and have the
>   update automatically forwarded to the "correct" registry. 
>   Of course, it's still a dream...

Join the RIDE to registries Heaven's Gate ...

> > * 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 ...
> 
>   Me too!
>   		(Ok, get these flame throwers set up :-)
> 
>   Honestly, how about offering that for as long as there is no
>   authentication interaction?
> 
>   As soon as we hit the wall we might have a solution ready or we might
>   have to *not* offer that comfort for signed or checksummed updates?

Please, don't get me wrong: I don't have a problem with John's proposed
feature but I wanted to make clear which trade-offs are made and that
there are certainly a few disadvatages involved that might not be obvious
at first sight.

I think we could find out a bit more about possible (small) problems when
somebody at the RIPE NCC does a small search in the update data for the
following:

- how often do people send objects with empty or no source?

- how often do people send objects with the wrong source?
  (These are potentially very dangerous when everybody starts
   sending objects without the source specified)

And of course we hope that the data will support us, 'lazy' people ;-),

David K.
---