[ncc-services-wg] RE: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sanjaya
sanjaya at apnic.net
Fri Aug 29 01:11:46 CEST 2003
> >> "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR > >> NON-PORTABLE", "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR PORTABLE" and > >> "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR UNSPECIFIED" values. It is optional in all > >> other objects, and it is single valued in all objects. > > > > As we're talking about the use of the organisation object, > > can we use it to show delegation path (instead of overloading > > the status attribute above) in a resource object (i.e. aut-num, > > inetnum and inet6num). For example, if querying an inetnum, > > you get this response: > > > > as a user of the DB, though I see the theoretical beauty of your > proposal, I would rather have a concise definition in the inetnum > object status attribute than a heap of output that will take > some time to make sense of, not to mention having to scroll back and > forth just to see the answer to a simple question. So I prefer the > proposal as it is in this respect. > > Joao Thanks Joao. After thinking about it, I agree that it is more important to have a concise whois response. It's just the *-BY-IANA/RIR/LIR in the status attribute that bugs me as we have the org-type attribute in the organisation object that 'begs' to be used :-) But that's a minor point really. I'm happy to support the proposal. Cheers, Sanjaya
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [db-wg] The New "organisation object" Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]