Sorry, I forgot to cc: the DB-WG list :-( I guess we should keep this thread in the LIR-WG list for the moment. Apologies for the mix-up, Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________ From: ACCESS::WOEBER "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" 26-JUL-2002 11:39:50.52 To: MX%"leo@ripe.net" CC: MX%"lir-wg@ripe.net",WOEBER Subj: Re: New draft: "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects" Dear Leo and "Team",

The new draft is available from our web site at:

<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/new-value-status.html>

Looks good!

We would welcome comments on this new draft until Thursday, 1 August 2002. All comments and suggestions should be sent to <lir-wg@ripe.net>.

Procedural question: How are we going to modify existing objects to conform to this proposal? Right now the template query returns: bash-2.05a$ wripe -t inet6num [ ... ] inet6num: [mandatory] [single] [primary/look-up key] [ ... ] status: [generated] [single] [ ] [ ... ] and it seems to be "optional" for the (new) ALLOCATED-BY-RIR case: bash-2.05a$ wripe -r 2001:0628::/35 [ ... ] inet6num: 2001:0628::/35 netname: AT-ACONET-19990920 descr: ACOnet Sub-TLA block country: AT admin-c: WW144 tech-c: WW144 tech-c: WK42 tech-c: CP8-RIPE notify: Domain-Admin@UniVie.ac.at mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: ACONET-LIR-MNT changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 19990920 changed: hostmaster@ripe.net 20011019 source: RIPE Is this going to change? E.g. to: status: [mandatory] [single] [ ] The wording used in the draft seems to indicate [optional] [single] [ ]. I think some clarification would be helpful. Thanks, cheers, Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~