[db-wg] ORGANISATION country code
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] ORGANISATION country code
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] ORGANISATION country code
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Cynthia Revström
me at cynthia.re
Tue Jan 10 15:13:36 CET 2023
Hi denis, I have to say that I don't agree with you at all here. The current state of this is just the same as the org-name attribute which is user editable in organisations without co-maintained resources. It doesn't make sense to me to somehow give this country attribute more weight than the org-name attribute. It also doesn't make sense to me to have different country code attributes for orgs with co-maintained resources compared to those without co-maintained resources. If you think this is a problem I would say that the better solution here is to have a different org-type for organizations that have co-maintained resources. That way we could communicate that some attributes are verified/maintained by the RIPE NCC for orgs with co-maintained resources. Personally, I don't see how having country codes that are unverified for orgs without co-maintained resources is a real issue, but if people think that the mixing of verified and unverified data is an issue then I would propose the org-type solution. -Cynthia On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 2:03 PM denis walker via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > Colleagues > > We have a number of outstanding issues from RIPE 85 so let's start > with NWI-10. Ed said in his update, > "Country code is now editable in organisations without co-maintained > resources" > I think this is a really bad idea. > > The country codes entered into ORGANISATION objects by the RIPE NCC > are well defined, verified and maintained by the RIPE NCC. If we allow > users to edit this field in other ORGANISATION objects, the values > they enter will be undefined, unverified and meaningless. Just like > the country code in resource objects. I don't think we should allow > more meaningless data to be added to the RIPE Database. Even worse, we > are mixing well defined data with meaningless data in the same > attribute in the same object. This will end up with some people > trusting all of this data and some people not trusting any of > it...confusion. > > I suggest we don't allow users to enter any data into this attribute > and remove any data that may have already been entered. If there is a > need for resource holders to enter a country code in ORGANISATION > objects set up for end users, then let's define a specific attribute > for that with a well defined meaning. Your thoughts are welcome... > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB-WG > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20230110/23c8a837/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] ORGANISATION country code
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] ORGANISATION country code
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]