Hallo Andreas! => Question is whether we want to overhaul the domain object, or just => approve the small changes discussed last week. If we just want the => small changes, I am sure we can do it in the db-wg (Wilfried?). If we => want other bigger changes, we'd probably need a dns-wg meeting. = =We probably should still do it - if possible - within the db-wg. =It's (just :-) another object and I think we should decide what's =it use and what's the future of each of its attributes. I think [ $ set /me /mode=piet.b # :-) ] I'm reluctant to drag this stuff (remaining in a state of being rare instead of well-done :-) into the DB-WG. Maybe I'm a bit too proud about the DB-folks, but I've got the impression recently that we managed to get various things and proposals discussed up to a useful point (by different means and methods) and then just put the finishing touch on top during the DB-WG meeting. Quite to the contrary, the DNS (-object stuff) is (and has been) tossed around for more than a year now, if I recall correctly. Listening to Piet's emontional announcement, I get the feeling that the DNS folks still have to make up their minds, one way or the other... If this indeed has happend, then a proposal for a changed object is welcome to be discussed withint the DB-WG. So, my proposal would be to actually convene a DNS group meeting (even with only this one agenda item) and to try to arrive at some kind of consensus or to completely dismiss this issue. Wilfried. PS: speaking as a plain USER and NOT speaking for the DB-WG, I'd rather have the DNS group dissolved than keeping it in the semi-paralysed state it is in these days :-( -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------