New Proposal

>   From owner-lir-wg at ripe.net Thu Mar 29 14:42:22 2001
>   From: Stephen Burley <stephenb at uk.uu.net>

Stephen,

>   	I would like to here your comments on the following proposal. After
>   being in an audit and getting a list as long as my arm of broken objects
>   in the DB it turned out that the majority of the objects where pre RIPE
>   and not subject to the same checks. I therefore propose that all
>   inetnums without a status (being pre-RIPE there is no status)  should be
>   marked with a new status of PR (Pre RIPE) and therefore be ignored by an
>   audit tool. Also all other objects prior to ripe should be flagged so as
>   to be ingnored in an audit, making it much easier to see what really
>   needs fixing.

I think the idea of marking such inetnums is very good.

I am just wondering whether "no status" really means "pre RIPE".
I suspect it is not the case, as Daniel's document was discussed
on the mailing list in May 1995 (and is dated 30 June 0995), while
RIPE NCC did perform allocations much earlier as far as I remember.

So my point is that the term "pre RIPE" may be misleading.

What about "status: UK"? (UK for UnKnown :)) )

Janos