Of course it’s not necessary.

I just want to point out, that the source is usually a prefix, while the function is usually an appendix. At least to my understanding.

Von: ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk <ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2020 13:55
An: 'db-wg@ripe.net' <db-wg@ripe.net>; Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de>
Betreff: Re: [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus

Hi Lutz

There is no requirement for a source on a MNTNER name. So in your example the MNTNER could simply be NCC-MNT.

cheers

denis

co-chair DB-WG

On Thursday, 1 October 2020, 08:53:56 CEST, Lutz Donnerhacke via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

So the general scheme is SOURCE-NAME-FUNCTION, i.e. RIPE-NCC-MNT ?

Von: db-wg <db-wg-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von William Sylvester via db-wg
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. September 2020 21:44
An: db-wg@ripe.net
Betreff: [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus

db-wg members,

The chairs of the database working group believe there is a consensus to have a standardised name format for creating new MNTNER objects. There was talk of a prefix (MNT-) or a suffix (-MNT). When creating a new standard it doesn't really make sense to introduce a standard with multiple formats. As there are currently 36347 MNTNERs that end with -MNT and 12480 MNTNERs that start with MNT-, we suggest that the standard should be to end with -MNT.

We ask the RIPE NCC to take the next steps in moving this request forward, conducting an impact analysis, and proceed with implementation.

Best regards.

William & denis

db-wg chairs