Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++
Tony Bates Tony.Bates at ripe.net
Thu Jul 21 16:50:26 CEST 1994
bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * > Firstly, this is just my opinion.. it is up to the working group chairs to decide any new extensions here. I am just `trying' to complete the action for ripe-81++ from the last meeting. The points you raise are more general (esp. the time related one). However, find below my personal view on this. * > Ok, here are my last comments again (seens that last time they * > went directly to /dev/null). I won't accept a document which does not * > allow more than 1 update of an object per day. * > Laurent * > * > A few things i'd like to propose: * > * > - A route/AS name attribute. You currently use the first line of the 'des * c' * > attribute to generate a name (with prtraceroute for instance). Having * > a separate name attribute can make the query of the server (whois or what * ever) * > easier since it doesn't require any parsing. * * I strongly agree. * Umm... do not see the need for routes to have names - doesn't effect prtraceroute or any other tool for that matter. Whats to parse in description ? It is there in the aut-num object so a tool uses it..and works as far as I can tell ? However, if the groups want this fine by me. Just I didn't hear any other votes for this until now. * > * > - Include the time (hour, min, second) in the "changed" attribute. This i * s * > in case of several changes in the same day. Proposed syntax * > (compatible with the older one): * > * > changed: <email> YYMMDD [hh:mm:ss] [+oo] * > * > If hh:mm:ss is missing we assume 00:00:00 +00 ??? * > +oo if the offset from GMT. (i know, we have to deal with the times * > zones :-) * * I agree not because I think that frequent updates are necessary but because * including the time zone better identifies the exact time of the update. * Makes no odds to me either way. The software allows more than one update a day so this is a misnomer from Laurent. However, this is VERY much a general database issue and not at all in context with the ripe-81++ proposal I am afraid. DB chair what say you ? --Tony.
[ db-wg Archives ]