Hi Tore, >> I have to agree with this, so if I have understood everything what we are >> currently looking at is something like: >> >> mntner: TEST1-MNT >> admin-c: TEST-RIPE >> auth: SSO-LIR no.foobar >> mnt-by: TEST1-MNT >> source: RIPE >> >> mntner: TEST2-MNT >> admin-c: TEST-RIPE >> auth: SSO-LIR no.foobar group1 >> mnt-by: TEST2-MNT >> source: RIPE >> >> mntner: TEST3-MNT >> admin-c: TEST-RIPE >> auth: SSO-LIR no.foobar group2 >> mnt-by: TEST3-MNT >> source: RIPE >> >> Person 1 -> Access to TEST1-MNT >> Person 2 | group1 -> Access to TEST1-MNT, and TEST2-MNT >> Person 3 | group1, group2 -> Access to TEST1-MNT, TEST2-MNT, and TEST3-MNT >> >> Is this what all of you are also thinking of? > > The TEST1-MNT part of would cater for my use case. > > The TEST2-MNT and TEST3-MNT parts of it are irrelevant to me (but I have > no objections to such functionality per se). > > In any case I would like to second Nick's comment about not being too > prescriptive about how it ends up being implemented, though. As long as > the basic desired functionality is provided for, I don't really care > about how it ends up looking. The product owners and developers are in > a better position to make those calls and I think we trust them to > come up with the best solution.
+1 to all of the above. Same use-case, same feeling about Nick's comment :) Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
