[db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Oct 1 13:54:50 CEST 2020
Hi Lutz There is no requirement for a source on a MNTNER name. So in your example the MNTNER could simply be NCC-MNT. cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG On Thursday, 1 October 2020, 08:53:56 CEST, Lutz Donnerhacke via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote: So the general scheme is SOURCE-NAME-FUNCTION, i.e. RIPE-NCC-MNT ? Von: db-wg <db-wg-bounces at ripe.net>Im Auftrag von William Sylvester via db-wg Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. September 2020 21:44 An: db-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus db-wg members, The chairs of the database working group believe there is a consensus to have a standardised name format for creating new MNTNER objects. There was talk of a prefix (MNT-) or a suffix (-MNT). When creating a new standard it doesn't really make sense to introduce a standard with multiple formats. As there are currently 36347 MNTNERs that end with -MNT and 12480 MNTNERs that start with MNT-, we suggest that the standard should be to end with -MNT. We ask the RIPE NCC to take the next steps in moving this request forward, conducting an impact analysis, and proceed with implementation. Best regards. William & denis db-wg chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20201001/1f7c7e97/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]