NIC handle writeup
- Previous message (by thread): NIC handle writeup
- Next message (by thread): NIC handle writeup
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Joe Abley
jabley at clear.co.nz
Fri Sep 25 00:29:09 CEST 1998
On Thu, Sep 24, 1998 at 09:01:49AM -0700, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: > > I think that there will be problems with "@" as the seperator. > It's too much like a viable email address. I applaude the use > of the domain name on the right and a domain specific unique > handle on the left, the concern is the seperator. Howabout > something like "%" ? "%" still has mail-related connotations though, although far less so than "@". I presume that some registries are using internal identifiers with "-" in them, which is why the current practice of using the "-" character to separate the internal identifier and the parent registry token is an issue. Can we presume that the separator should fit the following criteria: + minimise confusion with other related services like e-mail and DNS + not be currently used as part of an internal identifier for any registry + not be a "special" shell character like "&", "!", "|", ";", as these are annoying to those of us who like to use whois from the shell + be easy to parse, e.g. to strip the registry component to reveal an internal identifier -- for example, JA39(APNIC.NET) might not be desirable How about ":"? JA39:APNIC.NET doesn't look like an e-mail address or a DNS name. It does however look slightly remotely like a URL ;) > > The only thing that > > really matters is if we can find the data and that it improves the > > current situation. > > Thats two things. While desirable, the thing that I thought > NIC handles did was to identify an entity that was responsible > for some delegated level of responsibility. > > This could be a host, person, role, or organization that > accepted the responsibility over some delegated Internet > resources (numbers & lables). In ripe-181 the habit seems to have been to put contact fields (tech-c, admin-c) in every record where contact was appropriate, so contact details via NIC handles are immediately available. In other words, the drill down path of (for example) inetnum -> netname -> admin-c/tech-c isn't necessary since there are direct relationships inetnum -> admin-c and inetnum -> tech-c. Has this changed significantly in RPSL, so that it is now important to have netname-type fields which have registry-internal and registry-external representation? Or have I misunderstood the point you were making? > So each of these things would > have an unambigious lable that could be tied to an assignment > of responsibility. Those lables should be consistant, regardless > of where they are listed. They should also have some token that > indicates the listing origin and may include a method for > determining the level of trust on the listing. Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley at clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/
- Previous message (by thread): NIC handle writeup
- Next message (by thread): NIC handle writeup
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]