Re: [db-wg] IM contact

[Denis Walker <]

HI

Bear in mind that any contact attribute needs to be parsable to ensure
the syntax of the allowable URIs is correct. Otherwise we will end up
with even more bad data in the database. Verifying contact data has been
talked about on numerous occasions. If this is introduced at some point
in the future is it possible to verify different types of URI?

Currently "phone:" is mandatory and "e-mail:" is optional. Suggestions
to reverse this have been resisted in the past. The main argument being
that many people feel that a phone number should always be available as
a last or quick option to contact someone. Another argument is that many
people do not want to enter a valid e-mail address because of the risk
of spam. The same may apply to IM. These concerns need to be taken into
account if you are to introduce new methods of contact.

Also expressing mandatory and optional methods in a single attribute
could be more difficult.

On a more general point, the RIPE NCC receives many complaints about
invalid contact data now. Do we want to increase the diversity of
contact data when the quality of what we have is so poor?

Denis Walker
Database Group
RIPE NCC

Sascha Lenz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sander Steffann wrote:
>
>>>>     existing 'role' object.  Use of a different word to 
>>> describe this
>>>>     hint in the URI field would perhaps make things clearer, thus:
>>>>
>>>>       URI: <purpose (or whatever)> <URI> [optional] [multiple]
>>> hmm, why not go with a generic "attribute:" field then and stick all
>>> semantics in a free form optional label?
>>
>> Well, I think the semantics are clear for this: Make one field type
>> to put
>> contact information in, without having to make a different field type
>> for
>> every type of communication.
>>
>> You still have the 'how to contact someone' semantics, without fixing
>> it to
>> one type of communication. The alternative (if we want different
>> types of
>> contact information) is to add a "sip:" field, an "icq:" field, a
>> "jabber:"
>> field, a "skype:" field, etc.
>>
>> I personally would prefer a single field with a flexible uri than all
>> these
>> different types. As long as the semantics of the field remain 'how to
>> contact someone' ofcourse.
>
> like i mentioned before, i probably would support a more "standard"
> thing like SIP, and a generic "uri:" option woulnd't be too bad.
> I can't say anything against it, no problems. Why not.
> The idea is somewhat appealing to me, although i still think,
> phone+email is enough for everyone :-)
>
> But i'm totally against anything like "im:" or even "icq: .. skype:.."
> This still sounds stupid. If at all, we should go with the generic
> version to make everyone happy.
>