Hi, I cc'd the Database WG list for input on object syntax. On 3 Oct 2006, at 4:52GMT+02:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: [...]

My point was that not only ENUM registries exists in current internet. We are .cz domain registry and while I don't have problem with whatever label we have in RIPE database (we do have LIR atm), we don't exactly fall into LIR category (in it's original meaning - ie. ISP). Hence I could easily imagine that our org-type: would be changed to REGISTRY to match reality a bit more.

One legal entity might run an LIR, a ccTLD registry and an ENUM registry. Whether you want to identify them as a REGISTRY, a DOMAIN- REGISTRY or something else is dependent on what you want to use the org-type to tell people. Looking back into the mail archives for 2003 and 2004 I think the original purpose was to let people know how close to the End User the registration on a block of IP addresses was. If my memory is correct, the org-type was introduced after it was felt that status attribute values like "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA" or "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR" would overburden the status attribute syntax unnecessarily. Do people find org-type values like IANA, RIR, LIR and so on useful? If not, maybe we just need two values: REGISTRY for IANA, RIRs, LIRs, TLDs and Tier 1 ENUM operators and NON-REGISTRY for everyone else. However, if people really find the hierarchical distinctions in the current org-type values useful, maybe we need some additional granularity for the different kinds of domain registries? If the extra granularity is useful, perhaps we need to allow organisations to have multiple org-type values? That's probably preferable to having multiple objects for a single organisation. Thoughts? -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC