[db-wg] mntner with misleading primary key

Hi Chriztoffer,

> On 7 Sep 2020, at 12:45, Chriztoffer Hansen via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> On 07/09/2020 12:16, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote:
>> enforce this on all 'new' MNTNER object creations
>> I'm all for enforcing this syntax per you comment above.
> 
> Makes sense to _always_ be able to expect certain syntax rules for
> different DB objects types.
> 

The mntner name currently conforms to the <object-name> syntax defined in the RPSL RFC: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2622#section-2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2622#section-2>

There is no requirement to prefix or postfix with "MNT" at all.  

>> So if we go down this route where do we draw the line?
> 
> Current standpoint: For a "phase I". I would suggest enforcing syntax
> rules for _new_ objects.
> 

A syntax rule change can be done without needing a cleanup, if only enforced for new objects.

> Future standpoint up for discussion: For a "phase II", walkthrough
> current DB primary keys to get a scope of how many objects primary
> keys would need to be updated to follow "phase I" enforced syntax
> rules(?)
> 

I checked the RIPE database and found 12480 mntners starting with "MNT-", 36347 mntners ending with "-MNT", and 7772 for all other names.

> -- 
> Kind regards,
> CHRIZTOFFER
> 


Users can also report inaccurate information in the RIPE database to the RIPE NCC: https://www.ripe.net/contact-form <https://www.ripe.net/contact-form>

We can contact the user and ask them to correct or remove the object.


Regards
Ed Shryane
RIPE NCC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20200907/09ea457e/attachment.html>