Of course it’s not necessary. I just want to point out, that the source is usually a prefix, while the function is usually an appendix. At least to my understanding.
Von: [email protected] <[email protected]> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2020 13:55 An: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Lutz Donnerhacke <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus Hi Lutz There is no requirement for a source on a MNTNER name. So in your example the MNTNER could simply be NCC-MNT. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Thursday, 1 October 2020, 08:53:56 CEST, Lutz Donnerhacke via db-wg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: So the general scheme is SOURCE-NAME-FUNCTION, i.e. RIPE-NCC-MNT ? Von: db-wg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Im Auftrag von William Sylvester via db-wg Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. September 2020 21:44 An: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Betreff: [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus db-wg members, The chairs of the database working group believe there is a consensus to have a standardised name format for creating new MNTNER objects. There was talk of a prefix (MNT-) or a suffix (-MNT). When creating a new standard it doesn't really make sense to introduce a standard with multiple formats. As there are currently 36347 MNTNERs that end with -MNT and 12480 MNTNERs that start with MNT-, we suggest that the standard should be to end with -MNT. We ask the RIPE NCC to take the next steps in moving this request forward, conducting an impact analysis, and proceed with implementation. Best regards. William & denis db-wg chairs
