[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [db-wg] RIPE51 DB-WG Draft Agenda V1]]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 01:35:44PM +0200, Denis Walker wrote:
> Hi
> 
> The  irt object was implemented in a way to try to make it easy to use.
> We did not want to have to reference an irt object from every inetnum
> object.  So when an irt object is referenced from an inetnum object it
> applies to all the more specific inetnum objects, until another irt
> object reference is found.
> 
> With the -c flag we implemented a method of finding the related irt
> object to any given range. But it does require some effort on the part
> of the user to do this. You first query for the range to find out who
> operates that range. Then you query again using the -c flag to find the
> related irt object.
> 
> From this discussion it looks like what you want is for the first query
> to return this irt object as the default, along with the inetnum object
> that would normally be returned with this query.
> 
> If we make this the default operation, then we have to have a way to
> turn it off. Not everyone wants yet more information returned with their
> query. This could be done with another flag. Or we could link it in with
> the recursive searching currently done with personal data.
> 
> This would mean a query done for a range with no query flags would
> return the most specific inetnum object, route objects, organisation
> object, role/person objects and the irt object that would have been
> found with a -c query. The same query with the -r flag would only return
> the inetnum and route objects.
> 
> Is this the behavior that most people would prefer?

That sounds like a very good proposal.

Regards,

Andre
> 
> regards
> Denis
> Software Engineering Department
> RIPE NCC
> 
> Havard Eidnes wrote:
> 
> >>>We have changed the behaviour of the database so that when
> >>>you do a "-c" lookup, we return the IRT object in the
> >>>reply. I thought this was the desired behaviour. You can see
> >>>it here:
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>This is useful, but the desired behavious was to always return
> >>the relevant irt record for inetnum queries, along with the
> >>most specific inetnum object.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I guess the missing phrase both in the action point and in the
> >above reply is "by default".
> >
> >(And, yes, I agree, that is needed for this action point to make
> >any sense.)
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >- Håvard
> >
> >  
> >
>