Hi Chriztoffer, > On 7 Sep 2020, at 12:45, Chriztoffer Hansen via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 07/09/2020 12:16, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote: >> enforce this on all 'new' MNTNER object creations >> I'm all for enforcing this syntax per you comment above. > > Makes sense to _always_ be able to expect certain syntax rules for > different DB objects types. >
The mntner name currently conforms to the <object-name> syntax defined in the RPSL RFC: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2622#section-2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2622#section-2> There is no requirement to prefix or postfix with "MNT" at all. >> So if we go down this route where do we draw the line? > > Current standpoint: For a "phase I". I would suggest enforcing syntax > rules for _new_ objects. > A syntax rule change can be done without needing a cleanup, if only enforced for new objects. > Future standpoint up for discussion: For a "phase II", walkthrough > current DB primary keys to get a scope of how many objects primary > keys would need to be updated to follow "phase I" enforced syntax > rules(?) > I checked the RIPE database and found 12480 mntners starting with "MNT-", 36347 mntners ending with "-MNT", and 7772 for all other names. > -- > Kind regards, > CHRIZTOFFER > Users can also report inaccurate information in the RIPE database to the RIPE NCC: https://www.ripe.net/contact-form <https://www.ripe.net/contact-form> We can contact the user and ask them to correct or remove the object. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
