[DBWG] restrict name-space for new maintainer objects?

[Ben Maddison]

Hi Frank, all,

On 07/02, Frank Habicht wrote:

> Hi all,

> 

> in the RIPE DB WG is a discussion about potential confusion and

> potential abuse if maintainer objects are called names that look like

> aut-num's.

> 

> There seems to be a trend towards disallowing creation of new maintainer

> objects that look like ASNs (and aut-num objects' primary keys) :

>        '^AS[0-9]+'

> 

> I am also of the opinion that these should not be allowed to be created.

> 

> I tried to test, and created the maintainer AS37084 in the AFRINIC DB.

> Successfully. :-(

> 

> I would like us to consider whether the AFRINIC DB should implement a

> restriction to prevent creation of new maintainer objects with 'mntner:'

> attribute (primary key) in the format '^AS[0-9]+'.

> 

> Should any other formats be prevented?

> Should we force to have all (new?) maintainer objects be with a '-MNT'

> suffix?

> 

To be honest, I thought that this was already the case!
Maybe it is in IRRd, but not RIPE-WHOIS derivatives?

In any event, I think that this is a good idea.

A prefix or suffix should be sufficient to clearly indicate that the
object is a maintainer. I don't believe any other format checks are
necessary if that is the case.


> A quick check shows that there are 30 maintainer objects matching

> 'mntner: +[aA][sS][0-9]+' .

> one has a '-MAINTAINER' suffix

> 28 have a '-MNT'  suffix

> one has a '-AFRINIC' suffix

> none match '^mntner: +[aA][sS][0-9]+$' - to be same as aut-num's

> 

> 

> On another topic: RIPE seem to be having numbered WG items, so that when

> many issues are under discussion there can be a quick reference which

> we're talking about - and likely other advantages.

> 

> Should we do the same?

> Above about maintainer objects could be DBWG-1

> And this question whether the issues should be numbered could be DBWG-0

> 

That is an excellent idea.

Cheers,

Ben