[db-wg] NWI-4 - role of status: field in multivalued status context

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:20:18PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> Dear Working Group,
> 
> (You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html 
> to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.)
> 
> NWI-4 
> ---------
>     The RIPE NCC was tasked with the following action point: AP70.2
>     [RIPE NCC] Come up with a proposal for the status: field to fix the
>     requirement that certain objects may need multivalued status.
> 
>     Some believe that the main underlying issue here is that it is
>     currently not possible to create an assignment that is the same size
>     as an allocation in the RIPE Database. And resource holders are of
>     course supposed to create an assignment for the address space in an
>     allocation that is in use, by address policy.
> 
>     The main reason for this limitation is that the INET(6)NUM attribute
>     is a primary key. There is a work-around for this problem. Instead
>     of creating an assignment of the same size it's possible to create
>     two smaller assignments instead. In our (red: RIPE NCC) experience
>     this work-around has always been accepted.
> 
>     Still if the allocation is used as a whole, having a single
>     assignment for the whole block is a more accurate reflection of
>     reality, and it reduces the amount of objects to maintain.
> ----------
> 
> The AP70.2 action point refers to a suggest solution, following earlier
> discussion. But the chairs believe it would be good to bring this back
> to a clear problem statement first, and then suggest different solutions
> and their respective benefits and/or problems.
> 
> Furthermore address-policy wg policies mention the different statuses
> and what the different statusses reflect. Therefore we'll need to inform
> the address policy working group as well.
> 
> If you agree or disagree with this problem statement, please indicate
> your opinion on this mailinglist. Refinements to the text are welcome
> too.

I agree with the problem statement.

Piotr

-- 
gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski
E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl