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/
[apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
- Previous message (by thread): [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
- Next message (by thread): [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Geoff Huston
gih at telstra.net
Wed Jun 12 14:08:59 CEST 2002
> > This is an excellent idea. However I would use > > ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. > > That way we clarify the subtle difference while > > maintaining consistency with existing documentation. > > > > (If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time, > > but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as > > the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which > > is not quite the case.) To me "DELEGATED-TO-LIR" makes sense, as it infers that the process of further delegation can be used with sub-blocks and/or atomic units can be "ASSIGNED-TO-END-USERs with the inference that no further sub assignments are anticipated. Geoff
- Previous message (by thread): [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
- Next message (by thread): [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]