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]/
[db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at ripe.net
Thu Aug 28 10:25:56 CEST 2003
Sanjaya, Sanjaya wrote: > > While we understand the need for strict naming convention > to avoid name disputes, may I request that the rules and > convention will not be hard coded in the software but put > in a customisable config file. > As a user of RIPE's whois software, APNIC might want to have > a slightly different naming convention & rules :-) It should be fairly straightforward to modify the rules. However, without seeing specific requirements it is hard to be certain! ;) >>May be included in any other object type. It points to an >>existing organisation object representing the entity that >>holds the resource. The value of this attribute is the ID of >>the organisation object. It is mandatory in the aut-num >>objects, and inetnum and inet6num objects with >>"ALLOCATED-BY-IANA", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR >>NON-PORTABLE", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR PORTABLE" and >>"ALLOCATED-BY-RIR UNSPECIFIED" values. It is optional in all >>other objects, and it is single valued in all objects. > > > As we're talking about the use of the organisation object, > can we use it to show delegation path (instead of overloading > the status attribute above) in a resource object (i.e. aut-num, > inetnum and inet6num). For example, if querying an inetnum, > you get this response: > > % whois 192.168.86.251 > > inetnum: 192.168.86.0 - 192.168.86.255 > netname: EXAMPLE-NET-86 > descr: Sample network > registry: ORG-RIPE1-RIPE > custodian: ORG-RSIS54-RIPE > country: NL > admin-c: JE1-RIPE > tech-c: JE2-RIPE > [...] > source: RIPE > > organisation: ORG-RIPE1-RIPE <snip/> This is indeed our thinking, or something very similar. However, we want to do one step at a time. We would like to add the organisation object first, and then introduce a new "status:" attribute and inetnum template to include a new reference to responsible organisation(s). I think this is especially important given the input from the community that we need to make these changes as useful as possible to the users. Getting a 10 page proposal with 3 or 4 big changes makes it difficult to see the important details, at least for me. :) -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]