[db-wg] NCC still enforcing descr: content

Hi Job

Another point just crossed my mind. The "descr:" attribute is mandatory 
in the following object types:
inetnum
inet6num
aut-num
route
route6
various set objects

Was the first "descr:" attribute in all these object types constrained 
to represent the organisation? If not which ones was it constrained in, 
which ones are you going to make it optional in and which are going to 
be 'cleaned up'?

As for what does a description mean in any/each of these object types I 
will leave that to the more operationally minded people in the 
community. But I think it would be good to clarify what it does mean in 
each object type as this has never been defined before.

cheers
denis

On 12/08/2015 20:31, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 08:26:09PM +0200, denis wrote:
>> On 12/08/2015 16:13, Job Snijders wrote:
>>
>>> Summary option B:
>>>      - remove all mandatory populated 'descr:' attributes (the first
>>>        descr: of an object)
>>>      - change 'descr:' to be an optional attribute
>>>
>>> This change would essentially make 'descr:' and 'remarks:' the same.
>>
>> I think some clarification is also needed on the future use of the "descr:"
>> attribute. When you say it is the same as "remarks:" you can also argue that
>> "address:" is the same as "remarks:". They are all attributes containing
>> free text values.
>
> yeah, this was just my observation.
>
>> The slight difference is that both "address:" and "descr:" are only
>> allowed in certain object types. Most people know what is expected to
>> be in an "address:" attribute and would not use it for additional
>> comments, even though you could. Maybe some guide lines are now needed
>> about what is expected in a "descr:" attribute if it is optionally
>> included. Any guidelines agreed could be included in documentation and
>> help output, for example with a '-v' query.
>
> What do you think should be in "descr:"? Do you have suggestions for new
> guidelines for descr:?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>