Re: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type

[Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly@localhost]

On 9 Oct 2006, at 15:48, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
> Dmitriy V Menzulskiy wrote:
> > Alireza Saleh написано 04.10.2006 12:23:44:
> >  > ENUM-REGISTRY or any other terms is good, but, I think it would be
> >  > better to follow the hierarchy model. Having REGISTRY at the  
> > top and
> >  > more specific label such as org-detail: to describe the what  
> > kind of
> >  > registry  as a child.
> > I think, it's good idea:
> > REGISTRY-IANA
> > REGISTRY-RIR
> > REGISTRY-NIR
> > REGISTRY-LIR
> > REGISTRY-ENUM
> > REGISTRY-OTHER
> > NON-REGISTRY
> > WBR,
> > Dmitry Menzulskiy
> > "VimpelCom" JSC
> > DM3740-RIPE
> I believe we should keep things as simple as possible - and  
> according to what's been discussed here on the list and during the  
> session last week, the proposed "OTHER" seems to address  
> everybody's need.
Actually, we MUST keep things as simple as possible.

We're dealing with a real, existing database, not with a design  
exercise.
Antoin's proposal is what's on the table: 'OTHER' in place of 'NON- 
REGISTRY'.
Discussion of what would be "better" or a "good idea" is out of scope.


Best regards,

Niall O'Reilly
Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group