bonito@nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * > Firstly, this is just my opinion.. it is up to the working group chairs to decide any new extensions here. I am just `trying' to complete the action for ripe-81++ from the last meeting. The points you raise are more general (esp. the time related one). However, find below my personal view on this.

* > Ok, here are my last comments again (seens that last time they * > went directly to /dev/null). I won't accept a document which does not * > allow more than 1 update of an object per day. * > Laurent * > * > A few things i'd like to propose: * > * > - A route/AS name attribute. You currently use the first line of the 'des * c' * > attribute to generate a name (with prtraceroute for instance). Having * > a separate name attribute can make the query of the server (whois or what * ever) * > easier since it doesn't require any parsing. * * I strongly agree. * Umm... do not see the need for routes to have names - doesn't effect prtraceroute or any other tool for that matter. Whats to parse in description ? It is there in the aut-num object so a tool uses it..and works as far as I can tell ?

However, if the groups want this fine by me. Just I didn't hear any other votes for this until now.

I'd vote for routes having names. I think the arguments for this are essentially the same as in the discussion a couple of years ago about whether nets needed names (or, more precisely, whether net names needed to be unique). When working on routing problems, Routes will be the entities that are looked at during the analysis like nets have been in the past. Giving the tools the ability to put up even a slightly descriptive name provides a lot of sanity checking. It also gives a pronouncable verbal shorthand for human communication ("Hey, has that JvNC AGG-one come back up yet?") --Dale