On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:20:18PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear Working Group, > > (You can review > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html > to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.) > > NWI-4 > --------- > The RIPE NCC was tasked with the following action point: AP70.2 > [RIPE NCC] Come up with a proposal for the status: field to fix the > requirement that certain objects may need multivalued status. > > Some believe that the main underlying issue here is that it is > currently not possible to create an assignment that is the same size > as an allocation in the RIPE Database. And resource holders are of > course supposed to create an assignment for the address space in an > allocation that is in use, by address policy. > > The main reason for this limitation is that the INET(6)NUM attribute > is a primary key. There is a work-around for this problem. Instead > of creating an assignment of the same size it's possible to create > two smaller assignments instead. In our (red: RIPE NCC) experience > this work-around has always been accepted. > > Still if the allocation is used as a whole, having a single > assignment for the whole block is a more accurate reflection of > reality, and it reduces the amount of objects to maintain. > ---------- > > The AP70.2 action point refers to a suggest solution, following earlier > discussion. But the chairs believe it would be good to bring this back > to a clear problem statement first, and then suggest different solutions > and their respective benefits and/or problems. > > Furthermore address-policy wg policies mention the different statuses > and what the different statusses reflect. Therefore we'll need to inform > the address policy working group as well. > > If you agree or disagree with this problem statement, please indicate > your opinion on this mailinglist. Refinements to the text are welcome > too.
I agree with the problem statement. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: [email protected]
