[db-wg] Proposed change 2003.1: notification for more-specific

Hi all,

1. I just want to point out that the example is not exactly correct? 
192.168.201.0/24 is not more specific than 192.168.101.0/24.
They don't even overlap ;-)

2. Just to confirm my understanding: the successful creation of
a more specific inetnum will trigger a notification to all
mnt-nfy: of the parent block's mnt-lower(s). Is this correct?

Cheers,
Sanjaya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: db-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:db-wg-admin at ripe.net] On 
> Behalf Of Shane Kerr
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2003 12:49 AM
> To: db-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [db-wg] Proposed change 2003.1: notification for 
> more-specific
> 
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> This is one of a number of proposed changes to the way the RIPE
> Database works.  These are changes that are intended to make the
> database work more consistently, as well as provide an increased level
> of security and control to users.
> 
> Please have a look, and discuss it here.
> 
> 
> [2003.1] Notification on more-specific object creation authorisation
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Change:
> 
> When the creation of an object requires authorisation by a
> less-specific object, normal mntner notification will apply; "upd-to:"
> is notified of failure, and "mnt-nfy:" is notified of success.  Where
> there are multiple maintainers, only one is needed to successfully
> authorise the creation, but all the maintainers in the list will be
> notified.  
> 
> For example:
> 
> inetnum:    192.168.101.0 - 192.168.101.255
>    .
>    .
>    .
> mnt-by:     EXAMPLE-MNT
> mnt-lower:  ANOTHER-MNT
> mnt-lower:  YET-ANOTHER-MNT
> 
> If the successful creation of the more specific inetnum:
> 
> inetnum:    192.168.201.0 - 192.168.201.255
>    .
>    .
>    .
> mnt-by:     SOME-MNT
> 
> Is authorised by YET-ANOTHER-MNT in the less specific inetnum,
> notifications will be sent to the "mnt-nfy:" listed in both
> ANOTHER-MNT and YET-ANOTHER-MNT.
> 
> Motivation:
> 
> This is useful for two cases.  The first is so that the maintainer of
> an object will be notified when unauthorised attempts to create
> objects occur and will receive confirmation when objects are
> successfully created.  The second is for cases where there are
> multiple maintainers in a position to authorise a creation (as in the
> example above).  The maintainers that did not specificially authorise
> the creation are still notified (this is how notification for updates
> works today).    
> 
> 
> -- 
> Shane Kerr
> RIPE NCC
>