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/
[db-wg] irt object useless
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] irt object useless
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] irt object useless
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andre Koopal
andre.koopal at nld.mci.com
Fri May 27 23:32:49 CEST 2005
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 10:05:34PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 07:51:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > As I don't see any more comments on this, have we already reached consensus? > > Hiding more-specific objects by default is such a major change that I > > do not think it can be deployed after a discussion among just three or > > four people. > > Nobody wants to hide more-specifics. > > The goal is to show the inetnum: object (as before) and, in addition to that, > the most-specific available irt: object. *In the default response*. > > So if the inetnum: has its own mnt-irt: then show it, but if there is only > one for the encompassing /16 (or whatever), then show the "parent" irt: - > otherweise irt: is pretty useless. > That is exactly what I mean. And I don't see this as a discussion between 3 or 4 people, everybody can read this and participate. So the rest either doesn't care or agrees :-) Regards, Andre Koopal
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] irt object useless
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] irt object useless
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]