[db-wg] Re: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type

On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 09:47 +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
[snip]
> I can see a reason for the term "REGISTRY" if RIPE intends to expand
> heir services to more than IP network services, and doesn't feel to
> create a long list of different marketing terms for different
> organisations. I work for a ccTLD registry that is not an LIR, and even
> though that is a clear Internet registry function like IANA, RIR or LIR,
> RIPE currently does not supply a service for that function that requires
> an entry in the DB. 
> 
> Conclusion:
> I can live with ENUM-REGISTRY, REGISTRY, OTHER or no org-type at all.
> I cannot live with the org-type NON-REGISTRY. 
> 
> My prefference would be the ENUM-REGISTRY org-type.


This proposal is taking things out of context. The word REGISTRY in
RIPE-terms means an IP-address registry. Nothing more, nothing less.
That your organisation is categorised as NON-REGISTRY by RIPE doesn't
mean that RIPE does not acknowledge your role as a registry in some
other context, just that you're not an ip-addr registry. Should the
database contain exceptions for all kinds of registries which happen to
deal with something else than ip-addresses?


//per


-- 


Per Heldal - http://heldal.eml.cc/