>> and even if this scenario were not in play, do we need depth 24
>> because there are /8s out there? at that point, why bother with
>> limits?
>
> This is my point. Nobody can answer if the really needed limit is "2"
> or maybe "3", or some really complex business structure might need "5"
> at some point.
>
> On the other hand, nobody has explained what the problem is in "just
> not having a hard limit, besides the built-in hard limit of the number
> of bits".
>
> I'm a strong believer of the "unless there is an agreed-upon problem,
> let's not waste human lifetime in building a solution" school of
> things.
i think at least you and i have converged
If it was a week's work for 2 engineers to build some complex solution I would probably agree with you. But in reality, to set a limit would probably be a couple of lines of code and maybe 2 test cases in the test suite. You can always make a case for "why bother to set limits on anything?" But do we want anyone to be able to mess up the DB intentionally, or with a script that went wild, and create hundreds of these objects? When a couple of lines of code would cap it at a reasonable level. I see it as tidying up loose ends while reviewing the status rules.
cheers
denis
randy
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/