Well, not really. Say, if geofeed: is accepted, that also sets the way how to store geolocation data in the RIPE Database. I mean, allowing geofeed: and then adding country:, city: attributes in inetnum would be inconsistent and confusing.

So it is much more than just an optional attribute. I do think discussion about externalizing data (that also used to be part of inetnum via the country: attribute back in the day) belongs here.

Cheers,

Agoston

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 03:43:33PM +0200, Horváth Ágoston János wrote:
> An interesting proposal, but merging an external data set with RIPE
> Database arises some questions:
>
> - RIPE Database is set up to contain hierarchical data already. With this
> proposal, we would take some of this data outside the database in a manner
> that does not guarantee consistency with the database itself.

I don't think that is what is happening, this is more analogous to
"abuse-mailbox:". The value contains an email address (which is an
entrypoint outside the database, and interacting with the entrypoint is
outside the scope of this working group).

The "geofeed:" attribute is a pointer to elsewhere, and what a data
consumer wants to do with that information is up to them.

Kind regards,

Job