[apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
Nigel Titley nigel at titley.com
Wed Jun 12 14:23:15 CEST 2002
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 11:15, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > At 11:56 AM 6/12/2002, Guy Davies wrote: > >I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even > >plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know > >they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes > >clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are > >exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English > >as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be > >absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses. > > This is an excellent idea. However I would use > ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. > That way we clarify the subtle difference while > maintaining consistency with existing documentation. I'd be happy with this too. Mind you, it goes against the usual principle of introduce-confusing-jargon-in-order-to-ensure-job-security. > (If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time, > but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as > the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which > is not quite the case.) Well, a delegation can be withdrawn, and surely people aren't sufficiently stupid to confuse DNS delegation and address delegation.... However, I'm quite happy to agree with the consensus in this case.
[ lir-wg Archives ]