[db-wg] Proposal regarding Orphaned Objects
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal regarding Orphaned Objects
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal regarding Orphaned Objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Sun May 3 18:10:01 CEST 2015
On Fri, 01 May 2015 20:34:43 +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:07:00PM +0000, Shane Kerr wrote: > > On Fri, 1 May 2015 11:15:52 -0400 William <william.sylvester at addrex.net> wrote: > > > > > In my use cases, the holder of the inetnum is the ultimate authority > > In any use case I can imagine the inetnum should be the ultimate > authority, it comes as a suprise to me this is not the case for some > types of space. The entire security model flows from there. > > > I sympathize with your problem, and actually tend to agree with your > > philosophy here. > > > > Why should we treat legacy networks differently from non-legacy > > networks? > > > > Making it difficult to clean up related objects just results in crap in > > the database, and may have actual operational impact (inability to > > peer, incorrect reverse DNS, and so on). > > > > So I think we should accept your proposal, which then becomes, "apply > > reclaim functionality using all inetnum objects". > > I agree with the above. I think I might also, but I'm not sure I've fully understood. > It would be much appreciated if anyone offer insight in how this came to > be and why we should consider it anything else then an undocumented > inconsistency (or should I just say 'bug')? I definitely agree with this. Niall
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal regarding Orphaned Objects
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal regarding Orphaned Objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]