This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
- Previous message (by thread): [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
- Next message (by thread): [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nigel Titley
nigel at titley.com
Wed Jun 12 12:45:46 CEST 2002
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 07:11, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > At 06:00 AM 6/12/2002, Geoff Huston wrote: > >However, the distinction between "ALLOCATED" and "ASSIGNED" is perhaps a bit subtle. > > When these attributes were created, those particular words were in deemed both descriptive and clear. > Maybe the language concerned has shifted underneath in the meantime ;-). > As a native speaker of one of its dialects, would you make a suggestion for improvement? Well actually as a native speaker of (another) of its dialects, I've never considered the distinction of ALLOCATED and ASSIGNED to be other than subtle. I'd much prefer DELEGATED and ASSIGNED or some such. This may be a matter of taste however. Nigel
- Previous message (by thread): [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
- Next message (by thread): [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]