If only things had been created in such an orderly way :) Unfortunately not. In a NIK-HDL the source is a suffix and on set objects the function is a prefix. On Thursday, 1 October 2020, 14:00:16 CEST, Lutz Donnerhacke via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: 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