RIPE DB domain object

> Pray tell, why should "foo.bar" be more `readable' 1.2.3.4???
With a human reader in mind I preferred domain names over IP addresses.
This is also a nearer to DNS (I know, I know), you do specify hosts there as
servers, not (sets of) IP# .

> I would even go further: nameserver information in the domain
> object is utterly useless and only clogging the database; the
                    ~~~~~~~
We have not yet heard about the idea of publishing unpublished secondaries
this way and as I pointed out already it is useful to be able to
announce "hidden" primaries. It is also useful to be able to find out
the primary server (it is the first in the list), even if it is not "hidden".
With proper DNS setup this information should be coded into the SOA RR,
but experience shows that this is done wrong often. (OK, I wonder how and why
the correct information shall find its way into the DB.)

> nameserver information belongs in the nameserver, not in the
> database: then it's only duplication of information that's not
> serving any real purpose. So drop the n-server entries!

This should hold for more fields - the dom-net is available in the DNS by
RFC1101 style coding, zone-c is coded into the SOA and admin-c and
tech-c can then be announced via RP records. Anything left for the
domain object ?

-Peter