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 ]
Ulrich Kiermayr
ulrich.kiermayr at univie.ac.at
Thu Sep 4 15:09:18 CEST 2003
Hi Denis, > [snip] > > It may be a bit of an overkill to add mnt-ref: to the mntner: as in > most cases people would probably make it refer to itself, although it > would be consistent. Another option to prevent un-authorised use > (malicious or accidental) of a mntner is to require the mntner's own > authorisation to be provided whenever it is added to an object. I agree, that it looks like an overkill, but I'd prefer to see a consistent behaviour among all the objects. [I cold also imagine cases, where they might as well differ]. On the other hand i could also imagine a fallback-scheme like in the mnt-lower: if no mnt-ref, them use the mntner itself or so.... One thing i have not checked: Is a ref-nfy in a mntner redundant informaiton (e.g already coverd by notify there)? lG uk -- Ulrich Kiermayr Zentraler Informatikdienst der Universitaet Wien Network/Security Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Wien, Austria eMail: ulrich.kiermayr at univie.ac.at Tel: (+43 1) 4277 / 14104 Fax: (+43 1) 4277 / 9140
- 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 ]