Re: [db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK

On Sep 10, MarcoH <marcoh@marcoh.net> wrote:

> Summarizing the options:
> 
> - implemnt a whole new object and change others to reference it
> - minor database changes to limit the number of '@' signs returned
> - use less generic attribute names (still need to work out that one, but
>   major change)
> - change IRT to make PGP-stuff optional and thus IRT more usable
> - do nothing and stop this now
 - return by default the less specific irt object for every
   inetnum/inetnum6 query, if one exists

Many of these options are not mutually exclusive, i.e. it's probably a
good idea, independently from implementing or not abuse-c, to make PGP
attributes in IRT records optional and to make the email address in the
changed attribute a free form string (it does not /need/ to reference a
person object, as long as people in each organization can agree on what
should be put there).
Is anybody opposed to these changes?

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [7931 in9oUGNDn6W1g]