Hi Leo On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 19:08, Leo Vegoda <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:39 AM denis walker via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > [...] > > > If there are no objections to this, the co-chairs now ask the RIPE NCC > > to produce an impact/implementation report to add this new status > > value and include the business rules to restrict it's use. We will > > then seek a final approval from the community on the report. > > I don't object to addressing this. But I think there are some implicit > assumptions in the text from 2016. > > I'd like to understand if there is a technical need for exact match > assignments that duplicate all the contact and other information from > the /24 allocation. Or is the issue that there is some policy or > administrative need?
This suggestion avoids the need to duplicate any contact or other details. No additional objects need to be created. The status is changed from 'ALLOCATED PA' to 'ALLOCATED-ASSIGNED PA' in the allocation object. "descr:' and "country:" are multiple attributes so the end user can be identified here. If the end user has their own abuse contact that can be represented with an "abuse-c:" in the allocation object. The resource holder's abuse contact is still referenced through their referenced ORGANISATION object. So it allows a whole allocation to be documented in the database as an assignment without having to duplicate any data or create multiple objects. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG > > Kind regards, > > Leo -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
