[db-wg] Re: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type

Hi,

I cc'd the Database WG list for input on object syntax.

On 3 Oct 2006, at 4:52GMT+02:00, Ondřej Surý wrote:

[...]

> My point was that not only ENUM registries exists in current internet.
> We are .cz domain registry and while I don't have problem with  
> whatever
> label we have in RIPE database (we do have LIR atm), we don't exactly
> fall into LIR category (in it's original meaning - ie. ISP).  Hence I
> could easily imagine that our org-type: would be changed to  
> REGISTRY to
> match reality a bit more.

One legal entity might run an LIR, a ccTLD registry and an ENUM  
registry. Whether you want to identify them as a REGISTRY, a DOMAIN- 
REGISTRY or something else is dependent on what you want to use the  
org-type to tell people.

Looking back into the mail archives for 2003 and 2004 I think the  
original purpose was to let people know how close to the End User the  
registration on a block of IP addresses was. If my memory is correct,  
the org-type was introduced after it was felt that status attribute  
values like "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA" or "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR" would  
overburden the status attribute syntax unnecessarily.

Do people find org-type values like IANA, RIR, LIR and so on useful?  
If not, maybe we just need two values: REGISTRY for IANA, RIRs, LIRs,  
TLDs and Tier 1 ENUM operators and NON-REGISTRY for everyone else.  
However, if people really find the hierarchical distinctions in the  
current org-type values useful, maybe we need some additional  
granularity for the different kinds of domain registries?

If the extra granularity is useful, perhaps we need to allow  
organisations to have multiple org-type values? That's probably  
preferable to having multiple objects for a single organisation.

Thoughts?

-- 
leo vegoda
Registration Services Manager
RIPE NCC