Re: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects

[Bill Manning <]

	is it just me? for me, I know that my customers have
	at least two levels of downstream, BEFORE the address
	hits the end user. And I have an upstream...

	I think that there is not enough granularity in the
	proposal.  I'd be happier with two pointers, 
	allocated-from (my upstream)
	delegated-to (my downstream)


% 
% 
% seems better but not perfect - the important thing is to get all databases
% looking the same and using the same terms?
% 
% strictly speaking it is not "ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER" its
% "ASSIGNED-TO-SUBNET-USER"  for example it could be part of a DHCP dial up
% pool and thus only " leased" for the duration of that connexion.
% 
% 
% 
% > At 11:56 AM 6/12/2002, Guy Davies wrote:
% > >I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even
% > >plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know
% > >they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-)  It also makes
% > >clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are
% > >exactly that.  That way, an individual who is struggling with English
% > >as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be
% > >absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses.
% > 
% > This is an excellent idea. However I would use 
% > ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER.
% > That way we clarify the subtle difference while
% > maintaining consistency with existing documentation.
% > 
% > (If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time,
% > but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as
% > the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which 
% > is not quite the case.)
% > 
% > Daniel
% 


-- 
--bill