Re: [db-wg] irt object useless

[Andre Koopal <]

On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 11:32:49PM +0200, Andre Koopal wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 10:05:34PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 07:51:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > As I don't see any more comments on this, have we already reached consensus?
> > > Hiding more-specific objects by default is such a major change that I
> > > do not think it can be deployed after a discussion among just three or
> > > four people.
> > 
> > Nobody wants to hide more-specifics.
> > 
> > The goal is to show the inetnum: object (as before) and, in addition to that,
> > the most-specific available irt: object.  *In the default response*.
> > 
> > So if the inetnum: has its own mnt-irt: then show it, but if there is only
> > one for the encompassing /16 (or whatever), then show the "parent" irt: -
> > otherweise irt: is pretty useless.
> > 
> That is exactly what I mean.
> 
> And I don't see this as a discussion between 3 or 4 people, everybody can
> read this and participate. So the rest either doesn't care or agrees :-)
> 
And it is going now as I feared it. Because most seem to either agree or
don't care there is hardly any discussion and as a result notting seems
to be happening.

Wilfried: how can I make this an official proposal? Should I use the new
policy proposal process?

Regards,

Andre Koopal
MCI