In message <521118721.6532191.1570440537...@mail.yahoo.com>,
"ripede...@yahoo.co.uk" <ripede...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The DB-WG chairs have agreed to create "NWI-10 Definition of Country". This
>is an issue that has been debated many times over many years and needs a
>solution. The Solution Definition below is based on a presentation made at
>RIPE 78 by the RIPE NCC.
I applaud any and all efforts to improve upon the current situation with
respect to country designations within the data base.
That having been said, I want to take this opportunity to note once again
the two issues which, for me at least, are of overriding concern:
*) There current exist in the data base many many organization and
resource records for which there is a total absence of -any-
indication of the relevant country.
*) There current exist in the data base many many organization and
resource records for which the actual text of the country designation
obeys no known standard whatsoever.
For anyone attempting to perform even the most basic analysis of
data base objects, it is bad enough that many records properly use
ISO 3166 two-letter country code designations (e.g. "FR") while
many others spell the country name out in full (e.g. "France"),
but an even more dauting challenge to any kind of automated
analysis is presented in those cases... and there are many...
where -neither- of these standards is obeyed. There are quite
certainly entries in the data base whose two-letter country
designations appear to have been drawn at random from an alphabet
soup. Quite obviously, these defy all rasonable attempts at
automated analysis. In other cases, the intent is clear, but the
designations are still problematic in the context of automated
analysis. I am speaking now specifically of the many data abase
objects whose "country" designations are "EU". I do well and
and turly understand the rationale of those who have used this
"country" designation, but it is quite definitly not a standardized
ISO 3166 designation and thuse cauuses more problems than it solves.
I would like to see its use outright banned.
I have previously proposed that the NCC take meaures to introduce reasonable
and, in most cases, obvious remedies for the above two problems. I have
further offered to volunteer my own time towards this effort, and to share
the many logical inferences that I've already worked out for many many
specific data base objects (e.g. if some address: line mentions "Sofia"
then in the absence of any other clear indication to the contrary, it is
reasonable to infer that "BG" should be the country code).
I say again that I am perfectly in favor of this new proposal, NWI-10, as
promulgated by the chair, and that I welcome any proposal to move things
in a positive direction, however modest. That having been said however,
it appears to me that NWI-10 is only aimed at making small improvements
around the edges. It certainly makes no attempt to address either of the
two glaring issues and gaping wounds that I've noted, yet again, above.
So this naturally causes me to raise, the question, in my own mind at least,
of what it might take to generate some interest in attacking these two
overriding issues that I have reiterated above. Why does everyone seem
so content to simply ignore these very serious issues? And what sort of
verbal Molotov cocktail can I possibly hurl into this abyss of silence
about these problems that might make anyone here sit up and give a darn?
I support NWI-10 and applaud the chair for bringing it forward. But even
its full adoption and implementation will, I'm afraid, amount to little
more than putting lipstick on a pig so long as the very nature of country
designations in the data base, and even the need for such remains, as it
is now, subject to whim, personal fancy, and unrestricted interpretation.
Regards,
rfg
