If only things had been created in such an orderly way :) Unfortunately not.
In a NIK-HDL the source is a suffix and on set objects the function is a prefix.
On Thursday, 1 October 2020, 14:00:16 CEST, Lutz Donnerhacke via db-wg
<[email protected]> wrote:
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]> wrote:
So the general scheme is SOURCE-NAME-FUNCTION, i.e. RIPE-NCC-MNT ?
Von: db-wg <[email protected]>Im Auftrag von William Sylvester via db-wg
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. September 2020 21:44
An: [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
