| * Given that one of the aims of handles is (I think !) a more
| * compact, shorthand form of referring to someone, the RIPE-DR222
| * idea sounds better to me - DR222(a)rs.internic.net is longer than
| * my real name !
|
|I have to agree here. I think a nice syntax would be:
|
|<NIC>-XXXYYY
|
|where it is probably is too much hastle to ask InterNIC to redo all their
|nic-hdls to have INTERNIC-XXXYYY, so they probably keep the handles without
|the NIC. The others could be:
|
|RIPE-MT2
|APNIC-MT2
|...
My original reasoning was something like:
Keep the InterNIC-Handles as they are, ie. when there is no NIC-ID, then
let's assume it is InterNIC. For the others, tag them. For the DataBase,
store everything without a (external) tag with an (internal) InterNIC tag.
Also, I think it is really not necessary - maybe not even useful? - for
people to obtain more than one handle. However if someone is hit by that, or
even wants it :-), we could probably live (DataBase-wise) with a definition
of (REQUIRED, MULTIPLE, UNIQUE).
(Marten: could the DB-SW digest this?)
|Question is, to what level do we go down for the NIC ? Should we go down to
|
|DENIC-MT2
|JANET-MT2
|
|I don;t think so. My sense of NIC for the handles should be the highest level
|IP number authorities in the area .... (ie continents)
I think the question is, by whom and where these handles are dished out. My
personal preference is to have this done at the highest possible level, ie.
RIPE-NCC, APNIC, etc...
Unfortunately, until now there have not been any contributions to this
aspects.
Regards,
Wilfried.
