On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 07:18, denis walker <[email protected]> wrote:
[...] > This is exactly what I said. In the quoted para above I said "the > country codes have a well defined meaning", which you agree with. Then > I said "but when entered by users no one knows what it's purpose is.". > Another way of saying no one knows their meaning in the context of the > database, which you also agree with. > > > > > But even if we started to define a meaning at this late stage, who > > would choose to use it? > > In the case of the ORGANISATION object it would be at this 'early' > stage. Which I think would be a bad idea. For the INET(6)NUM objects I > agree it is at a late stage. But for the last 20 years many people > have assumed the country codes relate to geolocation and used the data > in that way. If we define it to mean that now, and make it optional, > we are aligning reality with what so many people already believe. With > clear explanations sent to all resource holders and/or maintainers of > the resource objects, I think we could get this message out there. Setting semantics aside... I don't know whether changing definitions — and adding a missing definition is a de facto change — would improve things or make them worse. What research do we have to support the position that it would be an improvement? 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
