[db-wg] Re: abuse-c: proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Fri Feb 6 15:31:16 CET 2004
> Attribute name > Name should be distinctive, eg: 'abuse-mailbox'; not 'e-mail' since it should be a handle, which allows me to even get to a <gasp!> phone number, calling it mail-anything seems a mis-direction. since all the rest are of the form <foo>-c:, do we have to invent something new? > Handle > Handle is upwardly scalable > Handle could refer to person, role, or maintainer yep > Value > Value is necessary; if not in primary object, then indirectly > Value in primary object is attractive at low end of scale > Value is vulnerable to RHS-hijacking, even if not in primary object! do not understand. do you mean the value (right hand side) of the abuse-c: attribute? or are we sending cash? :-) at this point, either i am not understanding something(s) or your discussion gets very complex. i am old and stupider every day, so much inclined to very simple things. e.g., o add abuse-c: which points to the nic-handle: of a person or role o separate, but worthwhile, discussion about enhancing person and role objects per ulrich. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]