RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
- Date: 12 Jun 2002 12:23:15 +0000
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 11:15, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> At 11:56 AM 6/12/2002, Guy Davies wrote:
> >I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even
> >plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know
> >they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes
> >clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are
> >exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English
> >as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be
> >absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses.
>
> This is an excellent idea. However I would use
> ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER.
> That way we clarify the subtle difference while
> maintaining consistency with existing documentation.
I'd be happy with this too. Mind you, it goes against the usual
principle of introduce-confusing-jargon-in-order-to-ensure-job-security.
> (If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time,
> but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as
> the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which
> is not quite the case.)
Well, a delegation can be withdrawn, and surely people aren't
sufficiently stupid to confuse DNS delegation and address delegation....
However, I'm quite happy to agree with the consensus in this case.
