Re: Adding nic handles to contact objects without one

["Bernard Steiner" <]

Folks,

>  "Eamonn" Eamonn@localhost writes:
>  * I'd like to know what exactly are the advantages (and to whom) to
>  * adding a nic-hdl to person objects which don't already have one ?
> I think there are benefits for everyone. The database becomes more coherent, 
> ambiguity between different people with the same name disappears (especially 
> if as you say below, references by name are then substituted by references to 
> NIC Handles).

This is a non-advantage because

> RIPE NCC can do it if users wish to. Of course this can only be done for 
> references by name corresponding to names that are unique in the database, 
> otherwise we wouldn't know who to assign the object to and we shouldn't.

the existing ambiguity will *not* disappear.

>  * Then you have the problem where these people created a new person
>  * object for themselves when nic-hdls became mandatory and left their
>  * old person object for dead. How will you overcome these old person
>  * objects ?

Let me also point out that there appear to exist (inetnum) objects that
reference non-existing person objects. If a new person object is created
such that the name happens to match, that person will then inherit the
reference. This may or may not be intentional (e.g. replacing a person object
with a role object where the new role object has the same handle as the old
person object :-)
On the other hand, just because someone who used to have something to do
with an inetnum in (say) Norway and another Person with the same name but
from (say) Switzerland appears in the database, if the .no guy's person record
got deleted, then the .ch guy has nothing to do with the .no inetnums.
Even as of now, I cannot delete old person objects in cases where names are
referenced and objects with the same name are still in the database :-(

What I am getting at is that if you add handles to all person objects and
then update the references from person names to handles, the effect is not 
necessarily correct. You cannot make a non-consistent database consistent by 
automatic measures.

Just my ECU 0.02
Greetings
	Bernard

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature