[db-wg] Proposal regarding Orphaned Objects

Hi,

On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:07:00PM +0000, Shane Kerr wrote:
> On Fri, 1 May 2015 11:15:52 -0400 William <william.sylvester at addrex.net> wrote:
> 
> > In my use cases, the holder of the inetnum is the ultimate authority

In any use case I can imagine the inetnum should be the ultimate
authority, it comes as a suprise to me this is not the case for some
types of space. The entire security model flows from there.

> I sympathize with your problem, and actually tend to agree with your
> philosophy here.
> 
> Why should we treat legacy networks differently from non-legacy
> networks?
> 
> Making it difficult to clean up related objects just results in crap in
> the database, and may have actual operational impact (inability to
> peer, incorrect reverse DNS, and so on).
> 
> So I think we should accept your proposal, which then becomes, "apply
> reclaim functionality using all inetnum objects".

I agree with the above.

It would be much appreciated if anyone offer insight in how this came to
be and why we should consider it anything else then an undocumented
inconsistency (or should I just say 'bug')?

Kind regards,

Job