On 9 Oct 2006, at 15:48, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
Dmitriy V Menzulskiy wrote:
Alireza Saleh написано 04.10.2006 12:23:44:
ENUM-REGISTRY or any other terms is good, but, I think it would be better to follow the hierarchy model. Having REGISTRY at the top and more specific label such as org-detail: to describe the what kind of registry as a child. I think, it's good idea: REGISTRY-IANA REGISTRY-RIR REGISTRY-NIR REGISTRY-LIR REGISTRY-ENUM REGISTRY-OTHER NON-REGISTRY WBR, Dmitry Menzulskiy "VimpelCom" JSC DM3740-RIPE
I believe we should keep things as simple as possible - and according to what's been discussed here on the list and during the session last week, the proposed "OTHER" seems to address everybody's need.
Actually, we MUST keep things as simple as possible. We're dealing with a real, existing database, not with a design exercise. Antoin's proposal is what's on the table: 'OTHER' in place of 'NON- REGISTRY'. Discussion of what would be "better" or a "good idea" is out of scope. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group