[db-wg] Re: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type

I think we should recognize the fact that the network, and thus the NCC's
functions, is changing over time. For quite a while the central activity
was the IP(v4) Registry.

With the agreement to support e164, we start to support a different registry.

Thus I agree that NON-REGISTRY - as in the "old" enivironment, is no longer
adequate.

"I would like this NON-REGISTRY to be changed to OTHER."

seems to be a very easonable way forward!
Wilfried.

Per Heldal wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 09:47 +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>>I can see a reason for the term "REGISTRY" if RIPE intends to expand
>>heir services to more than IP network services, and doesn't feel to
>>create a long list of different marketing terms for different
>>organisations. I work for a ccTLD registry that is not an LIR, and even
>>though that is a clear Internet registry function like IANA, RIR or LIR,
>>RIPE currently does not supply a service for that function that requires
>>an entry in the DB. 
>>
>>Conclusion:
>>I can live with ENUM-REGISTRY, REGISTRY, OTHER or no org-type at all.
>>I cannot live with the org-type NON-REGISTRY. 
>>
>>My prefference would be the ENUM-REGISTRY org-type.
> 
> 
> 
> This proposal is taking things out of context. The word REGISTRY in
> RIPE-terms means an IP-address registry. Nothing more, nothing less.
> That your organisation is categorised as NON-REGISTRY by RIPE doesn't
> mean that RIPE does not acknowledge your role as a registry in some
> other context, just that you're not an ip-addr registry. Should the
> database contain exceptions for all kinds of registries which happen to
> deal with something else than ip-addresses?
> 
> 
> //per