[Ietf-not43] Comments on draft-ietf-crisp-iris-areg-02.txt

[Andrew Newton]

George Michaelson wrote:
> Andy, this is a very bad space to be defining 'ENUMERATED' type values for. The
> status is a matter of policy, within each RIR region, and is dynamic: it changes
> in the 3-5 year timeframe. It would be a mistake to lock into RFC status
> specific values for this kind of field, its not really in IETF definitional
> space.
> 
> If its not possible to take a DB schema approach, and define this as being a
> keyword-value restricted element, where the value set is locally defined, in
> some external process, then I would suggest it might be best left as a simple
> string type, with no applied 'business logic' on it.

3-5 years doesn't leave much wiggle room, huh?

With XML namespaces, it is possible to define an extension mechanism to 
allow each RIR to define their own locally-defined, locally-managed 
list.  Given the frequency of the changes, that makes the most sense here.

-andy