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

Hi Job
This is another excellent example of how the data model could be improved. Currently we are constrained by this issue of the address range being the primary key that cannot be duplicated. What we see here is the need for an address range to be stored internally as both an allocation and an assignment. Then depending on the query the 'information' returned either shows the allocation data or the assignment data rather than the 'raw' data held in the database.

cheersdenis

      From: Job Snijders <job at instituut.net>
 To: db-wg at ripe.net 
 Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 15:20
 Subject: [db-wg] NWI-4 - role of status: field in multivalued status context
   
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.

Kind regards,

Job



  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20160525/e423cc27/attachment.html>