[db-wg] NCC still enforcing descr: content
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] NCC still enforcing descr: content
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] NCC still enforcing descr: content
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at ntt.net
Mon Aug 3 23:50:53 CEST 2015
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:18:09PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > > option B seems like a cleaner long term fix. > > I agree. I think leaving descr: mandatory will lead to confusion. I disagree, the only confusion so far as been that that attribute's value cannot be a description but in the past had to be the 'proper' company name. > Some descr: will refer to an organisation, some will not, some will > refer to a different organisation than org:, and for new objects some > content for descr: will have to be invented not because there is any > useful information but just because the field is mandatory... > > If we clean this up I think we should do it properly. To me the "descr:" attribute is an easy to parse component of an IRR object, there is only one "descr:" line, and it is mandatory according to RFC. If I look at organisations that have multiple ASNs the "descr:" attribute can be an informative hint which department or thingy you are dealing with. Semantically "descr:" is an easy place to look for a short summary of what the object is about. A parser can follow the "org:" object for a degree of legal validity, and use "descr:" for an informal, informative textual representation of what the object might be. Kind regards, Job
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] NCC still enforcing descr: content
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] NCC still enforcing descr: content
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]