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] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco d'Itri
md at Linux.IT
Fri Sep 10 19:40:15 CEST 2004
On Sep 10, MarcoH <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote: > Summarizing the options: > > - implemnt a whole new object and change others to reference it > - minor database changes to limit the number of '@' signs returned > - use less generic attribute names (still need to work out that one, but > major change) > - change IRT to make PGP-stuff optional and thus IRT more usable > - do nothing and stop this now - return by default the less specific irt object for every inetnum/inetnum6 query, if one exists Many of these options are not mutually exclusive, i.e. it's probably a good idea, independently from implementing or not abuse-c, to make PGP attributes in IRT records optional and to make the email address in the changed attribute a free form string (it does not /need/ to reference a person object, as long as people in each organization can agree on what should be put there). Is anybody opposed to these changes? -- ciao, | Marco | [7931 in9oUGNDn6W1g]
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]