[DBWG] stale route6 and domain objects for removed inet6num

[Nishal Goburdhan]

On 17 Aug 2020, at 16:31, Frank Habicht wrote:



> Sure: *these* were created by the member, not by AfriNIC.

> But should these not have been removed whilst removing the inet6num ?


assume for a minute that the member did not pay their fees.  afrinic 
themselves, would have happily removed the domain objects as part of 
“suspending the resources”  (heh!)  even though they were “created 
by the member”.

so, i’m not sure why you felt it necessary to say:  “ *these* were 
created by the member”.  as if that confers some sort of special power 
onto them?



> I would think so, but would like to seek consensus.


see above;  that ship sailed a long time ago  ;-)



> I believe the process of deleting an inet6num is rarely happening, but

> a) it sure did and b) it should include taking care of these 

> "dependant"

> objects....... right?


yes.



> If not we might see unnecessary garbage and (internal) problems when a

> subnet or supernet gets delegated again.


i seem to remember that there a policy that helps with this .. like 
“lame delegation” something-or-the-other that’s meant to deal with 
long-term occurrences of this.  so, even if the db-admin, for reasons 
unknown, deigned to remove the domain objects, said objects _should_ 
have been reported, and acted on.  iirc, the details were left to 
afrinic to implement, but i stand to correction.


-n.