[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 ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Tue Apr 13 18:22:54 CEST 2004
Marco, Of course my initial assumptions are crude ones. I believe we have to move the discussion from principled polemics to quantities on which we can base a decision. Can you quantify what will still be required after taking advantage of the kind of aggregation you suggest ? If not, are there any other volunteers out there? Best regards, Niall O'Reilly On 13 Apr 2004, at 16:59, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> Method B: >> Provide every inet[6]num with an appropriately configured IRT object: > This is not a good assumption because not all inet[6]num objects need > to be updated to be protected, only the parent object does. > Look at IRT-SIXXS and at how many objects it protects for a simple > example.
- 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 ]