[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
Wed Aug 12 21:19:56 CEST 2015
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:11:14PM +0200, denis wrote: > On 12/08/2015 20:55, Job Snijders wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 08:43:50PM +0200, denis wrote: > >>Another point just crossed my mind. The "descr:" attribute is > >>mandatory in the following object types: > >>inetnum > >>inet6num > >>aut-num > >>route > >>route6 > >>various set objects > >> > >>Was the first "descr:" attribute in all these object types constrained > >>to represent the organisation? > > > > From the above list only in inetnum, inet6num, aut-num. In route and > >route6 it can be whatever you want but the presence of the 'descr:' > >attribute is mandatory. > > > >>If not which ones was it constrained in, which ones are you going to > >>make it optional in and which are going to be 'cleaned up'? > > > >As I understood 'option B' the clean-up would happen for "descr:" lines > >which were/are enforced, if they aren't enforced then we can assume the > >data is what the End User wants it to be, and there would be no need to > >touch such lines. > > So are you OK with a final situation where "descr:" is optional in some > objects and still mandatory in others? If we make 'descr:' optional, i'd prefer it to be optional across the entire board. > >>As for what does a description mean in any/each of these object types > >>I will leave that to the more operationally minded people in the > >>community. But I think it would be good to clarify what it does mean > >>in each object type as this has never been defined before. > > > >For me as operator, I think I'd like "descr:" to be a one-line > >description what the object is about. If an organisation has many > >aut-nums, it would be beneficial if there is one line which describes > >the differences between all those aut-nums by providing a one-line > >summary. Because of "org:" I can programmatically follow which > >organisation it belongs to, but some more meta-data might be useful. > > As a neutral observer from operational point of view, that makes sense to > me. But does that mean you would like to make the attribute 'single' instead > of 'multiple' as it is now? If you make it single what would you do with > objects that already have multiple lines (besides the org name)? You could > convert any existing additional lines into "remarks:". I have no particular preference whether single or multiple is better. If anything, it would be a matter of clearly documentating. Given that "remarks:" already is multiple, it might make sense to declare "descr:" as 'single' and thus offer a clear differentiator between the two. "descr:" - one-line optional summary what the object is about "remarks:" - the story of your life 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 ]