[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Mon Oct 7 17:04:28 CEST 2013
On 7 Oct 2013, at 15:02, Gilles Massen wrote: > In the light of the upcoming RIPE meeting I'd like to bring the problem > of a single entity (organisation) wanting different abuse-c for > different resources up again. The discussion starting in June > (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2013-June/004079.html ) > was rather open ended. > > Apparently the only workable solution at this point is to create a > duplicate organisation object with a different abuse-c. > > Is data duplication really the solution that the WGs would like? I'm glad you've re-opened this question, Gilles, as I just last week had occasion to update an object which had long had multiple 'abuse-c' contacts, and had to choose which one to keep. I'm in the "No" camp wrt your question above. Back in the original "abuse-c" proposal [*], http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2004-January/002489.html there was provision for multiple "abuse-c" attributes, but this was not carried over into the current specification. Would "hint strings" be a way to go, or have you something else in mind, or are you just re-opening the question? ATB /Niall [*] Disclosure: I was a co-author. /N
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]