[db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus

 Hi Lutz
There is no requirement for a source on a MNTNER name. So in your example the MNTNER could simply be NCC-MNT.
cheersdenis
co-chair DB-WG
    On Thursday, 1 October 2020, 08:53:56 CEST, Lutz Donnerhacke via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:  
 
 
So the general scheme is SOURCE-NAME-FUNCTION, i.e. RIPE-NCC-MNT ?
 
  
 
Von: db-wg <db-wg-bounces at ripe.net>Im Auftrag von William Sylvester via db-wg
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. September 2020 21:44
An: db-wg at ripe.net
Betreff: [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus
 
  
 
db-wg members, 
 
  
 
The chairs of the database working group believe there is a consensus to have a standardised name format for creating new MNTNER objects. There was talk of a prefix (MNT-) or a suffix (-MNT). When creating a new standard it doesn't really make sense to introduce a standard with multiple formats. As there are currently 36347 MNTNERs that end with -MNT and 12480 MNTNERs that start with MNT-, we suggest that the standard should be to end with -MNT.
 
  
 
We ask the RIPE NCC to take the next steps in moving this request forward, conducting an impact analysis, and proceed with implementation.
 
  
 
Best regards. 
 
  
 
William & denis
 
db-wg chairs
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20201001/1f7c7e97/attachment.html>