7 Feb
2016
7 Feb
'16
10:50 a.m.
On 2/7/16 8:11 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
_______________________________________________
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 08:16:51AM +0100, Rob Janssen wrote:
This is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. If the data
can't be shown to be good, it also can't be shown to be bad. (I deal
with data quality issues as part of my professional life.)
Requiring everyone to justify the existing data is not a practical
solution, you are guaranteed to make a lot of people mad, and you will
have a lot of cleanup work to do to get data reinstated - and most of it
will happen soon after the deletions, so your workload will skyrocket.
Instead of deleting anything that you can't identify, how about marking
it as 'unknown', and making it easy for users to claim later?
No, this doesn't get you instant cleanup. But with the help of the
coordinators (who could be given virtual ownership of the ranges that
they manage) it could get cleaned up over time, and any new entries
would be assigned with owners (and even that data is going to become
less trustworthy with age).
It's not like we've run out of 44.x space, is it?
- Richard, VE7CVS
Is it really a good idea to base the cleanup on
data in the portal?
What would you have me do? It's clear that the majority of
the entries in
the DNS are bogus. We have NOTHING to reference except the portal data.
Doesn't it make sense to try to get that data in order?
- Brian