Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++

> 
>  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.    

I'd vote for routes having names.   I think the arguments for this are
essentially the same as in the discussion a couple of years ago about
whether nets needed names (or, more precisely, whether net names needed
to be unique).  When working on routing problems, Routes will be the
entities that are looked at during the analysis like nets have been in
the past.  Giving the tools the ability to put up even a slightly 
descriptive name provides a lot of sanity checking.  It also gives
a pronouncable verbal shorthand for human communication ("Hey, has that
JvNC AGG-one come back up yet?")

--Dale