[db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 07:11:53PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 10, Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> wrote:
> 
> > >everybody seems to be happy (or
> > >tired of it).
> > The second option, I would say!
> Agreed. I'm definitely not happy with a solution which requires
> modifying every inetnum record, and I still would like to know from the
> RIPE DB people if my proposal of returning IRT records by default on
> inetnum/inetnum6 queries could be considered.

I'm also not happy for this to keep going on. As always the strange thing
is that during coffee breaks everybody agrees it's an annoying little
problem with people spamming you with, mostly not really polite,
complaints. But in the end they don't show up.

I think Shane's lists looks quite reasonable, although it will impact each
and every object, changing the changed: attribute to contain a handle
instead of an email address would make a lot of difference as long as the
server doesn't resolve the handle by default.

Anyway, there is an action point open to see if we can get consensus on
this list. If everybody thinks this whole discussion gets more tiresome as
the problem we're trying to get rid of, then at least we can close the AP
with a small not that we've reached consensus on the fact we're tired of
it.

Summarizing the options:

- implemnt a whole new object and change others to reference it
- minor database changes to limit the number of '@' signs returned
- use less generic attribute names (still need to work out that one, but
  major change)
- change IRT to make PGP-stuff optional and thus IRT more usable
- do nothing and stop this now

Grtx,

MarcoH