##################### ERROR TEXTS FOR AUTO-HM ROBOT ###########################

# FILE FORMAT
#
# CODE [A-Z_]+							 <newline>
# PROBLEM TYPE [ERROR/error or WARNING/warning or INFORM/inform] <newline>
# CONCISE PROBLEM DESCRIPTION [1 line only]		         <newline>
# VERBOSE PROBLEM DESCRIPTION [multiple lines]		         <newline>
# DONE/END							 <newline>
#
# Any line in this file  beginning with a comment character will be ignored!
# Any blank lines will be ignored!

# PROBLEM TYPES
#
# There are three problem types, which the robot handles differently. The 
# type of a particular problem may be changed freely in this file, unless
# a particular problem has a comment indicating otherwise.
#
# ERROR:	A single error in the request will cause rejection.
# WARNING:	If the number of warnings exceeds $WARNING_REJECT_THRESHOLD
#		defined in RobotConfig.pm, the request will be rejected.
# INFORM:	These are purely informational: a request will not be
#		rejected no matter how many INFORM's are generated.
#
# VARIABLES
# Variables (e.g. ?1) are replaced in the robot's output
# by the appropriate value. They can be switched around
# (even into a different numerical order) in the message 
# and also used more than once.
# Please look at some example responses from the 
# robot if you have trouble interpreting the significance 
# of the variables in a message.

# GLOBAL VARIABLES
#
# Some document locations are also held in variables in the file Definitions.pm, 
# because the location changes fairly regularly
#
# ?policy-doc:		the IP registry policy document, 159 at time of writing
# ?request-form:	the request form, 141 at time of writing
# ?request-notes:	accompanying notes to the request form, 142 at time of writing
# ?ticket-doc		the RIPE document describing the ticketing system
# ?website		the base directory of the NCC website
#			http://www.ripe.net at 971110
# ?ftpsite		the base directory of the NCC FTP site.
#			ftp://ftp.ripe.net at 971110
# ?arinwhois            the URL of the ARIN web query page for their database.
#                       http://whois.arin.net/whois/arinwhois.html at 980420

# TEXT VERSION
# In the text version of the report, 
#
# 1) the HTML codes are replaced as follows.
#
# <EMPH>text</EMPH> 		replaced by *text*
# <A HREF="...">text</A> 	repaced by text
# <B>text</B>			replaced by *text*
# <CODE>text</CODE>		replaced by -code-
# <BR>				replaced by '\n'
# <P>				replaced by '\n'
#
# NOTE: starting and closing tags *must* be on the same line!
#
# 2) The text is left justified after all variable substitutions
#

############### START OF PROBLEM TEXTS #####################

FIELD_MUST_BE_GREATER_THAN_ZERO
WARNING
Field ?1 must be greater than zero at line ?2.

For some numeric fields, a '0' value is not valid.
DONE

TEMPLATE_IS_UNDEFINED
WARNING
Template was not recognised and *not* processed. Please check your spelling!

Only templates given in the ?request-form form may be used in the form. The
most likely cause of this problem is that the template header has been changed
somehow, so that the robot could not recognize it. In this case the robot can't
process the template, since it doesn't know what to look for.
DONE

SUBNET_USAGE_DECREASES
INFORM
Surprisingly, utilization of subnet ?1, line ?2, decreases with time.

The vast majority of addressing plans involve increasing usage of
address space with time. When an addressing plan has subnets in which
this is not the case, the most common reason is that an error has been
made in composing the plan.  
<P>
Please note that the usage figures given in each period should be
<B>cumulative</B>, and show the total number of addresses used in
that period.
<P>
If there is no mistake and usage actually
<EMPH>will</EMPH> decrease, please ignore this warning.
DONE

SUBNET_USAGE_INEFFICIENT
INFORM
Subnet ?1 at line ?2 is maximally only ?3% used, please consider using a smaller subnet size for this purpose.

If maximally only 50% of a subnet is used over the period of
a plan, then this means it would be
possible to use a 
<A HREF="/lir/services/subnets.html">smaller subnet mask</A>.
For example, if a subnet of size 256 is requested, but only
120 addresses are maximally used, then you should request a subnet of
size 128 instead. If there are good reasons to the contrary, please
specify them, either under the plan or in the optional information
section, and ignore this remark.
DONE

#Refers to immediate, year 1 or year 2 usage
PERIOD_USAGE_INEFFICIENT
WARNING
Overall ?1 efficiency is only ?2%, whereas it should be at least ?3%.

<A HREF="/docs/?policy-doc.html#">?policy-doc</A> lays out assessment
criteria for the addressing plan. One of these criteria concerns the
immediate <EMPH>utilization</EMPH> of the requested address space,
expressed as a percentage.  
<P>
In <A HREF="/docs/?policy-doc.html#3.3">section 3.3</A> it is specified that
at least <B>25%</B> of addresses on the addressing plan should be used
immediately the addresses are assigned and <B>50%</B> in year 1.  This
warning arises when these demands have not been met by the addressing
plan.
<P>
It is possible that there are reasons why these percentages are not reached.
Please be sure to include details in the Optional Information section
if this is the case.
DONE

LOOKS_LIKE_ABSOLUTE_PREFIXES
WARNING
It appears that you are using (at least some) absolute rather than relative prefixes.

An addressing plan is a description of how the requested set of
addresses will be subnetted. It is not clear at this point which
addresses <EMPH>in particular</EMPH> will be used, or even how many
will be approved, and therefore a
relative subnetting scheme should be used, starting at relative prefix
0.0.0.0. 
<P>
On approval of the request, a range of actual absolute IP
numbers equal in size to the number of addressses specified in the
plan will be assigned, either by the RIPE NCC (first request) or the
registry through which the request is submitted (subsequent requests).
DONE

TOTAL_SIZE_DIFFERENT_FROM_ACTUAL_SIZE
WARNING
The total size given (?1) is not the same as the actual total size (?2).

The individual sizes of each subnet on the plan (in column 3) should
add up to the total size given at the end of the plan (?2). This
warning occured because the actual space that all of the subnets
together take up (?1) is different from the total specified by the
requester.
DONE

PERIOD_TOTAL_SIZE_DIFFERENT_FROM_ACTUAL_SIZE
WARNING

The total ?1 usage given (?2) is not the same as the actual ?1 usage (?3).

Each of the Immediate, 1yr and 2yr columns has a total at the end. If
the actual numbers given in the column don't add up to the total given
by the requester at the bottom of the column, this warning results
since the plan is incorrect.
DONE

ADDRESSES_WASTED_BY_HOLES_IN_PLAN
WARNING
?1 addresses (?2%) are wasted by holes in the plan.

If an addressing plan is badly laid-out, then <EMPH>holes</EMPH> will result.
This happens when the subnets in the plan are laid out in such a way that
gaps arise in order to avoid crossing bit-boundaries. One way to minimize
holes is to order the subnets in decreasing size. For further details please
see <A HREF="/docs/?policy-doc.html">?policy-doc, section 3.2.1.4</A>.
DONE

SUBNET_SIZE_DIFFERENT_FROM_SUBNET_MASK
WARNING
The size specified (?1) is incorrect for the subnet mask specified (?2) at subnet ?3, line ?4.

For each subnet in the plan, a subnet mask and a subnet size should be given. 
The subnet size should, of course, correspond to the size of subnet 
dictated by the
<A HREF="/lir/services/subnets.html">subnet mask</A>.
DONE

# ?4 is replaced with a short suggestion text as to what the subnet
# mask SHOULD be, given the size of the subnet.
INVALID_SUBNET_MASK
WARNING
'?1' is not a valid subnet mask at subnet ?2, line ?3. ?4

There are only a certain number of dotted quads which are eligible for use
as a subnet mask. This is determined by the bit boundaries. This warning
results because '?1' is not one of the possible valid
<A HREF="/lir/services/subnets.html">subnet masks</A>.
<P>
?4
DONE

INVALID_DOTTED_QUAD
WARNING
'?1' is not a valid dotted quad at line ?2.

The robot was expecting a dotted quad, but encounted soemthing else ('?1').
A dotted quad consists of 4 dot-separated integers between 0 and 255 e.g.
90.50.190.6.
DONE

# Note: it's essential that this produce an error. We need a proper
# netname to be able to search for duplicates if request is a success.
BAD_NETNAME_FORMAT
ERROR
Invalid value ('?2') in '?1' field.

The '?1' field has a format fixed by ?request-notes. This requires
that it consists of capital letters, numbers or
dashes. The name that you entered did not conform to this format.
Please remove the offending characters.
DONE

# We match on !~ /[A-Za-z-0-9]/. We don't moan about a-z, since
# the DB automatically corrects these.
ILLEGAL_CHARACTERS_IN_NETNAME
WARNING
Illegal characters in the  '?1' field.

The '?1' field has a format fixed by ?request-notes. This requires
that it consists of capital letters, numbers or
dashes. The name that you entered (?2) included one or more
characters not matching this specification.
<P>
Please remove the offending characters.
DONE

PRIVATE_ADDRESSES_NOT_CONSIDERED
WARNING
The '?1' field should in practice always be 'yes'. Please ask the customer if they have considered using private addresses.

The field is intended to prompt the requester to think about whether
private
address space would be suitable for some or all of the uses mentioned in the
request. If it is possible to use private addresses, then we urge people to do
so in order to conserve the limited address space available.
<P>
<A HREF="?ftpsite/rfc/rfc1910.txt">RFC 1910</A> gives a lot of information
about private address space.
<P>
Even if the use of private addresses have been rejected, this field
should still have a 'yes' value to indicate that it has at least been
thought about.
DONE

LOOKS_LIKE_RELATIVE_PREFIXES
WARNING
Prefixes in the current usage plan should be absolute, not relative.

The current usage plan is for giving details of any public address space which
the user already has. Therefore, all prefixes on this plan should be absolute,
giving the absolute address at which a particular subnet begins.
DONE

MUST_BE_A_SINGLE_VALUE
INFORM
The '?1' field was not a single value: extracted value '?2'.

The '?1' field requires a single value. The robot detected that some unexpected text
was also given on this line. This can often happen if it is desired to explain
the value in question to a hostmaster. This remark is just to tell you which
value the robot extracted (?2).
<P>
The data discarded was '?3'.
DONE

MULTIPLE_LINES_NOT_ALLOWED
WARNING
The '?1' field cannot have multiple lines, extracted only the first one ('?2').

Some fields on the form may have multiple lines. For example, a person can
have multiple phone numbers. However, some may only have a single line, and
this includes the '?1' field. If the robot finds multiple lines where they are
not allowed, it will use the first one.
<P>
In this case, the values '?3' were found, but only the first one extracted.
DONE

MISSING_PREFIX_OR_SUBNET_MASK
WARNING
Either the prefix or the subnet mask is missing from the line '?1'.

All lines on the addressing plan must stick to the format laid out in ?request-form.
In particular, all of the specified values must be present.
In the line specified, either the first (prefix) or second
(subnet mask) field was missing. This means that the robot cannot tell which
value is which anymore.
DONE

MISSING_SIZE_OR_USAGE_ESTIMATE
WARNING
Either the 'size' value or one of the usage estimates is missing from the line '?1'.

All lines on the addressing plan must stick to the format laid out in ?request-form.
In particular, all of the specified values must be present.
In the line specified, either (a) the subnet size value was missing
, and/or (b) one or more of the usage estimates was missing.
This means that the robot cannot tell which value is which anymore.
DONE

MISSPELT_FIELD_NAME
INFORM
Found misspelt field name '?1', converted it to '?2'.

It sometimes happens that a field on the form is mis-spelt so that the robot
cannot recognise it. For example, this commonly occurs due to the differences
in British and American English.
<P>
This warning indicates that it thinks you
have spelt a field name differently to the way it is spelt on the form, and
has therefore corrected the misspelling, in order to be able to further
process the contents of the field.
<P>
If this conversion was incorrect, please change the name of the field manually
to the correct spelling, given in
<A HREF="/docs/?request-form.html">?request-form</A>. 
DONE

OBJECT_IN_DB_KEY_MISMATCH
ERROR
The object found in the RIPE Database using the NIC handle '?1' does not match the object in the form.

The object submitted in the form contains the NIC handle '?1'. A
search in the RIPE Database returns an object with key '?2', whereas
the object in the request has a different key: '?3'.
<P>
This probably means that an incorrect NIC handle has been used on
the form. Please check whether the NIC handle which was used on the
form is the intended one.
DONE

INVALID_NIC_HANDLE_IN_PERSON_OBJECT
ERROR
The '?1' field contains an invalid NIC handle ('?2').

Please see
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html">?website/docs/?request-notes.html</A>
for detailed information on valid values for this field.
Here are some examples illustrating the possibilities:
<P>
(1) 'MK16-RIPE' ->
a NIC handle which already exists in the
<A HREF="/db/index.html">RIPE Database</A>.
<BR>
(2) 'DK58' ->
a NIC handle which already exists in the 
<A HREF="?arinwhois">ARIN Database</A>.
<BR>
(3) 'AUTO-1' ->
substitute a <B>new</B> NIC handle automatically using the 
information from the 'person:' field of the object.
<BR>
(4) 'AUTO-1abc' ->
substitute a <B>new</B> NIC handle automatically using the initials 
given as a base.

DONE

INVALID_NIC_HANDLE_IN_INETNUM_OBJECT
ERROR
The '?1' field contains something other than a valid NIC handle ('?2').

The ?1 field should contain a NIC handle which refers to the
person object of someone serving as a contact person for
this network.
<P>
Please note that <B>names</B> of contact persons are <B>not</B>
permitted in this field.
<P>
Please see
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html">?website/docs/?request-notes.html</A>
for detailed information on valid values for this field.
Here are some examples illustrating the possibilities:
<P>
(1) 'MK16-RIPE' ->
a NIC handle which already exists in the
<A HREF="/db/index.html">RIPE Database</A>.
<BR>
(2) 'DK58' ->
a NIC handle which already exists in the 
<A HREF=">arinwhois">ARIN Database</A>.
<BR>
(3) 'AUTO-1', 'AUTO-1abc' ->
refers to a person object included in a Person Template on this form,
for which an AUTO NIC handle is being requested.
<BR>
DONE

LOOKS_LIKE_AUTO_NIC_HANDLE
ERROR
the '?1' field contains an invalid value ('?2'), but it looks like you maybe meant to put in an AUTO NIC handle. Please check syntax.

AUTO NIC handles have the following syntax which the following examples
make clear:
<P>
(1)	'AUTO-1' ->
substitute an AUTO NIC handle using the information from the
'person:' field of the object.
<BR>
(2)	'AUTO-1abc' ->
substitute an AUTO NIC handle using the initials given as a base.
DONE

NO_DESCRIPTION_FIELD_IN_PLAN
ERROR
The description field for subnet ?1, line ?2, has not been filled in.

Every line in the plan should have a description in the last column. 
?request-notes specifies the following for the description field:
"Specify a short but  semantically  meaningful  description  of  
the role of the subnet in the user's organisation."
DONE

POSSIBLE_RESERVED_SUBNETS
WARNING
Subnet ?1, line ?2, looks like a 'reserved' subnet.

Reservation of addresses for uncertain future purposes
is not acceptable due to the present need for address conservation.
The robot thinks you've put a subnet in your plan which is reserved
or for some other reason unused.
<P>
Quoting from ?policy-doc:
<P>
Assignments must be based solely on realistic expectations as specified 
in the addressing plan and the current address space usage. End users 
are not permitted to reserve addresses based on long term plans, because 
it fragments the address space. Such reservations are generally fruitless 
because they turn out to be unnecessary or insufficient for the user's needs. 
<P>
Please remove any offending subnets if this is the case.
DONE

NO_OVERVIEW_OF_ORGANISATION_IN_REQUEST
ERROR
No text was given for the ?1 template.

It is mandatory to give at least a brief overview of the organisation which
is requesting the addresses. 
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html">?request-notes</A>
requests the following for this section:
"To assess a user's request, we must understand the structure of 
the organisation wanting the addresses and in which part of that 
organisation they would be used. In this section, a description 
of the organisational structure should be given. Include information 
on how the addresses will be distributed among the various departments.
If the organisation has offices in more than one country, please 
specify which country will use the address space. Please include 
details of the parent company, subsidiaries and contact persons." 
DONE

CONVERTED_SLASH_TO_INT
INFORM
The value in slash-notation (?2) in the '?1' field has been converted to '?3'.

<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html">?request-notes</A> requires an integer
value for the '?1' field, hence this conversion.
DONE

FIELD_IS_BLANK
ERROR
The '?1' field is blank, completely missing or the field name is misspellt.

Many of the fields on the form are mandatory, including '?1'. This field should
always have some sort of value entered, otherwise the hostmasters cannot
process the request.
DONE

FIELD_HAS_INVALID_VALUE
ERROR
The '?1' field has an invalid value.

Many of the fields on the form have a specific set of values which are 
acceptable for that field. For instance, many fields require either 'yes' or
'no'. 
Please consult 
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html">?request-notes</A>
for details of the valid values associated with the '?1' field.
DONE

OBJECT_NOT_IN_DATABASES
ERROR
The ?1 object for '?2' could not be found in either the RIPE or ARIN Databases.

The ?1 object referenced on the form could not be found in either the 
RIPE database or (in the case of a person object) the ARIN Database.
Please check that the reference you made was correct. For instance, NIC handles
are a common source of error. In the interests of speed, you could check that
any objects you reference are in the database before you submit the form.
If you don't have a local <CODE>whois</CODE> client, you could use the
following query pages 
<BR>
RIPE Database:
<BR>
<A HREF="/db/whois.html">?website/db/whois.html</A>
<BR>
ARIN Database:
<A HREF="?arinwhois">?arinwhois</A>.
<P>The whois client software is available from 
<A HREF="?ftpsite/tools/">?ftpsite/tools/</A>.
DONE

EMAIL_ADDRESS_FORMAT_PROBLEM
ERROR
'?1' in the '?2' field is not an RFC822 compatible email address.

You have entered a value for the '?2' field which is not
<A HREF="?ftpsite/rfc/rfc822.txt">RFC 822</A> compatible, and
therefore is probably not reachable. Could you please enter the email in the
correct format.
DONE

NIC_HANDLE_UNKNOWN
ERROR
'?1' in the Network Template is an unknown NIC-handle.

Any 
<A HREF="/db/doc.html#NIC">NIC handle</A> 
mentioned in the Network Template should either have a corresponding
Person Template on the form
(if it is an
'AUTO' NIC handle), be associated with a person in the 
<A HREF="/db/index.html">RIPE database</A> or be associated
with a person in the
<A HREF="?arinwhois">ARIN Database</A>
. '?1' couldn't be found in any of these places.
DONE

PI_MISMATCH_BETWEEN_OVERVIEW_AND_NETWORK_TEMPLATES
ERROR
The 'PI-requested' field of the Request Overview Template doesn't agree with the 'status' field of the Network Template.

The
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html#overview">Request Overview Template</A>
has a field pi-requested. This field indicates whether
<A HREF="/docs/?policy-doc.html#independent">Provider Independent</A>
(PI) addresses are requested, as opposed to the default,
<A HREF="/docs/?policy-doc.html#aggregatable">Provider Aggregatable</A>
(PA)
.
If PI addresses are being requested, then this should also be reflected in the 
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html#status">'status' field</A> of the 
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html#network">network Template</A>. 
If this is not the case, then the request cannot be processed by a hostmaster
since they are unsure whether PI or PA addresses are being requested.
DONE

TOO_MANY_TEMPLATES_OF_TYPE_X
ERROR
Too many templates of type '?1' found, maximum is ?2. Only processed first ?2.

Each template in the form has a maximum limit as to how many can appear on
the form. Only ?2 template(s) of type '?1' should appear.
<P>
Each ?request-form form should only contain one request for address
space. This error could arise if you have included more than one request in
your application. In this case, please split them up and resubmit separately.
DONE

TOO_FEW_TEMPLATES_OF_TYPE_X
ERROR
Too few templates (or only empty templates) of type '?1' found, minimum is ?2. 

Most of the templates on the form are mandatory. If you miss one out it will
usually make it impossible for a hostmaster to judge the request. Therefore
you should resubmit once all of the required information is present in the form.
<P>
A <B>common cause</B> of this error is that the header for a template (the part
at the top showing it's name)
has been accidentally altered in some way so that the robot
does not recognise it.
DONE

# This MUST be an error. We use the value to decide whether it's
# a PI or PA request, hence it must be rejected if we can't decide.
PI_REQUESTED_FIELD_MUST_BE_YES_OR_NO
ERROR
The '?1' field should be 'yes' or 'no'.

There are only two possibilities for this field, either 'yes' or 'no'. A
common error is to leave the field blank; unfortunately this leads to ambiguity 
about the nature of the request. Please see 
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes#pireq">?request-notes</A> for more details.
DONE

# ?2 is replaced with some suggestion text if there are any
# replacement possibilities
INVALID_COUNTRY_CODE
WARNING
'?1' is not a valid ISO 3166 country code. ?2

A collection of 2-letter codes exists for designating the various countries
of the world. This is the ISO 3166 standard. Several fields on the form
require the use of these 2-letter codes. '?1' is not one of the codes.
<P>
Please consult the list (available at, for example, 
<A HREF="?ftpsite/iso3166-countrycodes">?ftpsite/iso3166-countrycodes</A>)
to find the ISO 3166 country code for the country you wish to designate.
DONE

INVALID_VALUE_FOR_STATUS_FIELD
ERROR
The '?1' field should be ASSIGNED PA or ASSIGNED PI.

There are only two possible values for this field: ASSIGNED PA or ASSIGNED PI,
depending on whether 
<A HREF="/docs/?policy-doc.html#aggregatable">Provider Aggregatable</A>(PA)
or  
<A HREF="/docs/?policy-doc.html#independent">Provider Independent</A>(PI)
addresses are being requested. 
DONE

NO_TOTALS_LINE_AT_BOTTOM_OF_PLAN
ERROR
No totals were given at the end of the plan.

On both the
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html#current">Current Usage Template</A>
(if completed) and the
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html#addressing plan">Addressing Plan Template</A>
there should be a line with totals at the bottom of the plan so
that the hostmasters can evaluate the request more easily. This saves
both your time and ours.
<P>
This error indicates that no total line was included
or that it could not be recognised, for example because it did not consist 
of exactly 4 numbers.
DONE

NO_SUBNETS_FOUND_IN_PLAN
ERROR
Couldn't find any subnets in the plan. Please check the format is correct.

While analysing the plan, the robot was unable to find any lines matching the
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html#plan">format required</A> by the form. 
<P>
The robot
is quite picky about what it expects to find on the plan because otherwise
it might mix the figures up. Therefore you should ensure that all the numbers
required are on the form are present. For instance, the following will all
cause a subnet not to be recognised:

- leaving out the yr2 column, hoping that this means 'repeat the yr1 figure'
<BR>
- using x's, y's or any other letter in a dotted quad. 'x.x.x.0' will
not be recognised, nor will '193.0.0.x'.
<BR>
- inserting pieces of text between the numbers on the plan. will also mean
The only text should occur in the description field at the <B>end</B>
of the line.
<P>
You can see what the robot managed to extracted by looking at the
extracted data above. Anything missing is probably caused by a format
different from that in ?request-form.
DONE

ADR_MISMATCH_WITH_REQUEST_OVERVIEW_TEMPLATE
ERROR
One or more of the <EMPH>address totals fields</EMPH> in the Request Overview Template don't match those in the Addressing Plan Template [LONGACK for details].

Several of the totals values from the addressing plan should be repeated in the
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes#rot">Request Overview Template</A>. 
This template is provided to enable the hostmaster
to get a (as the name suggests) a quick overview of what the request involves
and thus to judge it more quickly. 
<P>
Of course, if the values in the two templates
are different this only causes confusion. Please make sure these values
match and resubmit.
<P>
The following values don't match:
<P>
?1
DONE

SUB_MISMATCH_WITH_REQUEST_OVERVIEW_TEMPLATE
ERROR
One or more of the <EMPH>subnet totals fields</EMPH> in the Request Overview Template don't match those in the Addressing Plan Template [LONGACK for details].

Several of the totals values from the Addressing Plan should be repeated in the
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes#rot">Request Overview Template</A>. 
This template is provided to enable the hostmaster
to get a (as the name suggests) a quick overview of what the request involves
and thus to judge it more quickly. 
<P>
Of course, if the values in the two templates
are different this only causes confusion. Please make sure these values
match and resubmit.
<P>
The subnets total field in the Request Overview Template should be the
same as the number of subnets indicated as <B>IN USE</B> on the 
addressing plan (NOTE: if a subnet has value '0' for address usage in
a particular period, you shouldn't count it towards the total for that
period.)
<P>
The following values don't match in this request:
<P>
?1
DONE

ADDRESSES_COVERED_IN_PLAN_DIFFERENT_FROM_ADDRESSES_REQUESTED
ERROR
The range of addresses covered by the plan (?1 - ?2 = ?3) is not the same as the total size given (?4).

The number of addresses requested should be equal to the number of
addresses which are covered by the addressing plan.
This value includes
all of the subnets and all of the holes between subnets in the plan. 
<P>
The first prefix on your plan is ?1 and the last address covered by 
your plan is
?2 ( = last prefix + last subnet size). This is a total of ?3 addresses,
which differs from the number of addresses you requested, ?4.
<P>
Please check over your plan for mistakes!
DONE

VALUE_MUST_BE_AN_INTEGER
ERROR
The '?1' field must be an integer value.

Many of the fields in the form <EMPH>must</EMPH> contain an integer value in 
order to be meaningful. This applies to the '?1' field.
DONE

SUBNET_PREFIX_IS_DUPLICATED_IN_PLAN
ERROR
The subnet with prefix ?1 occurs ?2 times! Subnet prefixes must be unique.

The prefix ?1 occured more than once in the plan. There are no situations in
which this can be part of a valid plan. Therefore, the mistake should be
identified and the plan resubmitted.
DONE

TWO_SUBNETS_IN_PLAN_OVERLAP
ERROR
The subnets ?1 (line ?2) and ?3 (line ?4) overlap.

The two subnets overlap because the start address of ?1 plus it's 
size takes it past ?3.

In no case is a plan valid if the subnets
overlap, therefore the error should be corrected and the request resubmitted.
DONE

SUBNETS_IN_WRONG_ORDER
ERROR
The subnets ?1 (line ?2) and ?3 are in the wrong order.

On the Addressing Plan, the subnets must be ordered by increasing prefix value.
Please re-order the subnets so that the prefixes are in the right order.
DONE

NOT_A_VALID_BIT_BOUNDARY
ERROR
The subnet with prefix '?1' is on an invalid bit boundary for the subnet mask '?2'.

The start address for each range of addresses to be assigned 
(?1 in this case)
must be divisible by the size of the range (?3), otherwise the
prefix/mask combination is invalid.
DONE

WHOIS_PROBLEM
INFORM
Whois failed with '?1', couldn't check request against database.

Some of the request details couldn't be checked, because of the
error described above. Database checking will be performed
manually by a human hostmaster, if the rest of the request is OK.
DONE

PLAN_TOO_LARGE
INFORM
This plan is too large to be usefully processed by the robot: analysis left to a human hostmaster.

At a certain point, the usefulness of automatic analysis of
a plan becomes close to zero, as the problems cascade
upon each other. If a plan is above a threshold number of lines,
like this one, the robot will ignore it. Full analysis is left
to a human hostmaster. The rest of the request is analysed
as usual.
DONE

#?1 = 'errors' or 'warnings'
MAX_NO_OF_PROBLEMS_OF_A_TYPE_EXCEEDED
INFORM
Some ?1 have not been shown for this template because too many were generated.

In order to keep the report comprehensible, there is a limit on the
number of problems which are displayed per template. In many cases, solving
the problems listed will remove the problems which are not reported
anyway, since problems tend to be dependent on each other.
DONE

#?1 = person ?2 = role ?3 = 'Person Template'
NO_PERSON_OR_ROLE_FIELD_IN_PERSON_TEMPLATE
ERROR
A ?1 or ?2 object must have a ?1 or ?2 field!

The object in the ?3 must have a key field. If it's a ?1 object it must
have a ?1 field. If it's a ?2 object it must have a ?2 field.
DONE

ABANDONED_PLAN
INFORM
Processing of plan abandoned. Couldn't continue.

Sometimes the robot will encounter a problem with a plan which means that
it is senseless to carry on with processing the plan. For instance,
if it thinks it has missed (failed to extract) a subnet. This would
mean that subsequent lines on the plan would not make sense and the 
robot would produce lots of meaningless error reports.
<P>
Please check your plan over. The problem which led to abandoning the
plan will be detailed in a warning or error above.
DONE

CANT_USE_PERSON_TEMPLATE_HERE
INFORM
It looks like a person object is being used (illegally) for the ?1 or ?2.

It is not permitted to use a person object as the contents of
a ?1 or ?2, since (at least partly) different
information is needed.
<P>
Please see 
<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html">?website/docs/?request-notes.html</A>
for more information on the fields required for these templates.
DONE

COMBINED_SOME_LINES_ON_PLAN
INFORM
Detected and combined some split lines on the plan. Please check the extracted data if you have problems.

<A HREF="/docs/?request-notes.html">?website/docs/?request-notes.html</A>
specifies that subnet lines on an addressing plan should appear one-per-line.
This is the robot's basic assumption when extracting a plan. 
If it thinks that a subnet has been
split onto two lines, it will try to remedy the situation by combining them.
<P>
Often this will work, but sometimes will lead to mistakes. Therefore, if you
receive other problem reports about the plan, one of the likely causes is
that a split subnet was re-combined wrongly. You can see whether this is the
case by looking at the second section of the report which details the
data which the robot extracted.
<P>
The best solution in case of problems is to stick to the format required by the form!
DONE

MULTIPLE_KEY_FIELDS_FOUND
INFORM
It looks like multiple templates of type(s) '?1' were combined under this template. Please put a template header before all templates.

Each template should have a separate header, so that the robot can
tell which template is which. If you combine the data from two templates
into a single template, you will most likely receive several problem reports.
This is easily fixed by using the proper template headers on the ?request-form
form, one-per-template.
DONE

LOOKS_LIKE_BAD_TEMPLATE_HEADER
INFORM
The line '?1' looks like it was supposed to be a template header, but wasn't in the proper format.

It's important that template headers are in exactly the format which
appears on the form. If not, it's highly likely that the robot
will miss them, which in almost all cases will produce errors.
<P>
If you get this remark, please check your template headers and bear
in mind that other errors reports may be caused by the robot
not recognising this template header.
DONE

EXTENDED_DOTTED_QUAD
INFORM
Found invalid dotted quad '?2' at line ?1. Assumed you meant '?3'.

A valid dotted quad looks like 'x.x.x.x', where x is a number
between 0 and 255. I found fewer than 4 x's in '?2', so I assumed
you meant the missing x's to be 0's. I therefore added the missing
0's to make '?3'.
<P>
If this was a bad assumption, please correct the dotted quad to
have the correct format.
DONE
