[db-wg] NCC still enforcing descr: content

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 01:33:05AM +0200, denis wrote:
> First of all [...]

Thank you for the historical context.

> On 03/08/2015 23:50, Job Snijders wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:18:09PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
> >>> option B seems like a cleaner long term fix.
> >>
> >> I agree. I think leaving descr: mandatory will lead to confusion.
> >
> > I disagree, the only confusion so far as been that that attribute's
> > value cannot be a description but in the past had to be the 'proper'
> > company name.
> 
> This is not quite right. Only the first description line had to be the
> company name. Other descriptions could have been added and in many
> cases probably have been.

I stand corrected.

> >>Some descr: will refer to an organisation, some will not, some will
> >>refer to a different organisation than org:, and for new objects
> >>some content for descr: will have to be invented not because there
> >>is any useful information but just because the field is mandatory...
> >>
> >>If we clean this up I think we should do it properly.
> >
> >To me the "descr:" attribute is an easy to parse component of an IRR
> >object, there is only one "descr:" line, and it is mandatory
> >according to RFC.
> 
> Not according to the RIPE Database implementation. It is a multiple
> attribute in all operational objects. When you say "easy to parse" I
> presume you mean by a human reading the data. Free text is never easy
> to parse by software.

Yes, I meant fit for human consumption (freetext), but easy to find for
the parser.  "descr:" to me is different then "remarks:", in general I
found that "remarks:" is too elaborate while "descr:" is nicely terse.

> >If I look at organisations that have multiple ASNs the "descr:"
> >attribute can be an informative hint which department or thingy you are
> >dealing with. Semantically "descr:" is an easy place to look for a short
> >summary of what the object is about.
> >
> >A parser can follow the "org:" object for a degree of legal validity,
> >and use "descr:" for an informal, informative textual representation of
> >what the object might be.
> 
> Many objects probably already have these descriptions. So if you make
> it optional and remove the first "descr:" attribute, which is the one
> that was enforced to be a copy of the org name, then you have what you
> are asking for.

I am hestitant to remove existing attributes, and would prefer that
people remove them when they deem fit (for instance, after they upgraded
their software).

To me, RIPE NCC finally to stop enforcing the very contents of "descr:"
was all that was requested, not a 'clean-up' of sorts.

Kind regards,

Job