[db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Engin Gunduz
engin at ripe.net
Wed Apr 7 18:43:44 CEST 2004
Hi all, On 2004-04-06 17:23:53 +0100, Niall O'Reilly wrote: [...] > > Three things are needed: > > - The inetnum:, inet6num:, person:, role: and mntner: objects are mntner objects are specifically for authorisation/authentication purposes in the whois database. I would not put "abuse-mailbox:" into mntner objects, as this is irrelevant to mntner object's purpose. Let's keep the functions of object types clean and distinct. For "inetnum:"s and "inet6num:"s, would it make sense to put "abuse-c:" which will reference to a person/role object by NIC handle, thus removing the need to bulk-update the inet(6)num objects when the abuse mailbox changes? Also, it might make sense to add "abuse-mailbox:" into the new organisation object, that will be put into production soon. [...] > > abuse-mailbox-attribute = > "abuse-mailbox:" > [ hint-string ] > RFC-2822-addr-spec > [ RFC-2622-comment ] We have RPSL-comments already (anything after a hash '#'). Would it make sense to use it rather than RFC-2622-comment? My 2 cents, -engin -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Software Engineering Department
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]