[db-wg] (no subject)

Hi Wilfried,



> >First problem with IRT is that in order for it to have any value
> every LIR
> >has to actively modify ALL their inetnum objects......... Now
> that must mean
> >that the intention has never been to make sure all LIRs implement it.
>
>   Sorry, but this just wrong.

Not according to the Ripe documents, I've also seen an example on how to do
a script to update all customer inetnum objects.

But as I can see you're the author of one of these documents you must be
correct!.. :)

>
>   It is exactly one of the advantages (of course you might want to have a
>   different point of view :-) that modifying 1 (or a very small number of)
>   object(s) would be sufficient - as long as we are talking hierarchical
>   (i.e. LIR) address space.
>
>   Tagging the _allocation_ object of an LIR would cover _all_ the
>   _assignment_ objects in that block. With the added benefit that you can
>   still have a "more specific" or 1st-line pointer in an assignment
>   object.

I wasn't aware of this, is it explained in ripe-254? But it does sound much
better than modifying all customer objects. Still my suggestion with
maintainer is easier, but I will acknowledge that its a good idea to use a
hierachy in such a solution.

>
> >Next problem is the idea behind IRT, apparently it is to be used by
> >companies who outsource handling of abuse - we don't.
>
>   Out-sourcing would be supported, but it is a secondary issue. The
>   primary issue is that it allows maintaining the data by the group being
>   responsible for a certain function. There are real life situations where
>   the role/group/team keeping track of address assignments is _different_
>   from the role/group/team being responsible for abuse or
> incident handling.


ripe-254, 1. Motivation

....
In many cases such incidents are handled by CSIRTs whose contacts are
different from those listed in "admin-c:" and "tech-c:" attributes.


That is my problem, this object is designed for making it possible to
outsource handling of abuse. Its not a problem that the object has this
feature, its a problem that its mandatory! "many cases" in the text sounds
like majority, how did you come to this conclusion?

Can you acknowledge that by making these features mandatory you put
unnecessary work on LIRs not outsourcing abuse handling? In reality this
means several of these will probably decide not to take the time to create
these objects (as we know very few has been created).

I know this is just my point of view and that all those LIRs who needs to
outsource (would it be possible to get some numbers?) think very
differently. I really do not want to make it problematic to outsource, but I
would just like the rest of us to also be taken into consideration.





Med venlig hilsen/Best regards

Christian Rasmussen
Hosting manager, jay.net a/s

Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark

Email: noc at jay.net
Personal email: chr at corp.jay.net
Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301

Produkter / Products:
http://hosting.jay.net