[db-wg] Proposal regarding Orphaned Objects

On Fri, 01 May 2015 20:34:43 +0100,
Job Snijders wrote:
> 
> 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.

  I think I might also, but I'm not sure I've fully understood.

> 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')?

  I definitely agree with this.

  Niall