Re: RIPE Handle document

[Daniel Karrenberg <]

  > "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" woeber@localhost writes:
  > 
  > I think the wording, and maybe even the thinking, has to be made a little b
  > it
  > clearer (at least to me :-)

Certainly.
  > 
  > I'm reading the proposal to mean the following:
  > 
  > - On a global scale, we need unique handles (Internet Handles).
  > - InterNIC doesn't provide them for use by Regional Registries
  > - There is an agreement that Internet Handles are manufactured in a
  >   distributed way by appending the Regional Registry code
  > - It doesn' matter from where I get the handle, it is an Intenet Handle tha
  > t
  >   is globally unique and valid.
  >   (ie. I can get my person object registered in any database other than the
  >    RIPE-DB with my RIPE-assigned Internet Handle) 	**correct??
  > - we have to get this going by
  >   a) converting all existing handles, which have by definition been assigne
  > d
  >      by the InterNIC into the -INIC format/syntax
  >   b) assign -RIPE format/syntax handles for all the others in the RIPE-DB
  > - to keep it going we refuse person objects, that do neither come with an
  >   Internet Handle, nor request assignment by the agreed string of "assign"
  > 
  > Anything wrong with this?

To the contrary. This is the way it should be presented. It eluded us.
Thanks for setting our thinking straight. We'll post a re-worded version
a.s.a.p., which will probably be Thursday because towmorrow is very
full already.

Daniel

DK58-INIC