| * Given that one of the aims of handles is (I think !) a more | * compact, shorthand form of referring to someone, the RIPE-DR222 | * idea sounds better to me - DR222@rs.internic.net is longer than | * my real name ! | |I have to agree here. I think a nice syntax would be: | |<NIC>-XXXYYY | |where it is probably is too much hastle to ask InterNIC to redo all their |nic-hdls to have INTERNIC-XXXYYY, so they probably keep the handles without |the NIC. The others could be: | |RIPE-MT2 |APNIC-MT2 |... My original reasoning was something like: Keep the InterNIC-Handles as they are, ie. when there is no NIC-ID, then let's assume it is InterNIC. For the others, tag them. For the DataBase, store everything without a (external) tag with an (internal) InterNIC tag. Also, I think it is really not necessary - maybe not even useful? - for people to obtain more than one handle. However if someone is hit by that, or even wants it :-), we could probably live (DataBase-wise) with a definition of (REQUIRED, MULTIPLE, UNIQUE). (Marten: could the DB-SW digest this?) |Question is, to what level do we go down for the NIC ? Should we go down to | |DENIC-MT2 |JANET-MT2 | |I don;t think so. My sense of NIC for the handles should be the highest level |IP number authorities in the area .... (ie continents) I think the question is, by whom and where these handles are dished out. My personal preference is to have this done at the highest possible level, ie. RIPE-NCC, APNIC, etc... Unfortunately, until now there have not been any contributions to this aspects. Regards, Wilfried.