[db-wg] NCC still enforcing descr: content

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