On 8 Jun 2010, at 15:55, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Shane Kerr wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:37 +0200, Denis Walker wrote:
If we make it optional now, although it is still in the RPSL definition, it can be completely ignored. Does anyone have any strong views on this either way? I'd actually suggest going further, and getting rid of it completely. If it doesn't dere a purpose any longer, yes, I agree.
I agree, let's do this. [...]
IIRC, the "usual" approach was to deal with such a change in phases, like issue a warning for a while, then refuse an update if it violates the acceptable schema, and eventually cleaning up old objects that haven't been touched for a looong time.
I'm sure the DB guys can refresh our memory regarding the specifics.
This sounds like the way forward with regards to implementation too. Andy