Re: dom-net tag under domain

> 
>  bonito@localhost (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes:
>   * Dear NCC people,
> 
> Hi Blasco,
Hi Tony!

>   * 
>   * I think that too strict sintax checking is applied in the case
>   * of the dom-net database field. An example follows.
>   * We are deploying technology to obsolete networks classes (A,B,C,...)
>   * and at the same time the RIPE database checking rules do not take
>   * into account the actual usage of dear old subnetworks?
>   *
> Actually, the syntax is according to the document ripe-049 which sets
> out the definition for dom-net.
>  
>   * In practice very often a number of subnetworks of a class B network are
>   * used to host machines in a domain while other subnetworks are used
>   * to host machines of a different domain. This is common for large
>   * networks in a city.
>   * 
> Perhaps, but as far as I understand this was meant to be just a pointer to
> the networks possibly serviced as part of that domain.
> I would say the dom-net is not very useful anyway.
> 
>   * We would like the checking rules to be relaxed in this case.
>   * Could you please do that?
> 
> No Sorry - not unless the document is changed it'll stay as it is. 
> As I said I would prefer to see dom-net phased out rather than 
> preserving its life.
> 
>                    --Tony 

I see your point, altough I do not agree...
To bypass your sintax checker we will send our updates with the dom-net
field converted to remarks...

Cheers,
       Blasco