[db-wg] irt object useless
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Implementation of POEM object
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: The Cidr Report
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andre Koopal
andre.koopal at nld.mci.com
Tue Jun 21 11:29:26 CEST 2005
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 11:32:49PM +0200, Andre Koopal wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 10:05:34PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 07:51:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > > As I don't see any more comments on this, have we already reached consensus? > > > Hiding more-specific objects by default is such a major change that I > > > do not think it can be deployed after a discussion among just three or > > > four people. > > > > Nobody wants to hide more-specifics. > > > > The goal is to show the inetnum: object (as before) and, in addition to that, > > the most-specific available irt: object. *In the default response*. > > > > So if the inetnum: has its own mnt-irt: then show it, but if there is only > > one for the encompassing /16 (or whatever), then show the "parent" irt: - > > otherweise irt: is pretty useless. > > > That is exactly what I mean. > > And I don't see this as a discussion between 3 or 4 people, everybody can > read this and participate. So the rest either doesn't care or agrees :-) > And it is going now as I feared it. Because most seem to either agree or don't care there is hardly any discussion and as a result notting seems to be happening. Wilfried: how can I make this an official proposal? Should I use the new policy proposal process? Regards, Andre Koopal MCI
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Implementation of POEM object
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: The Cidr Report
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]