[anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c cleanup

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 05:18:06PM +0200, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:

Dear WG Members

> > The idea of "abuse-c:" was to create one single place/way of
> > documenting abuse contact details. So far all that has been achieved
> > is to add a fourth way to document it. All the old ways
> > ("abuse-mailbox:" in 5 object types, IRT and remarks) are still
> > littered throughout the database.
> 
> 
> A schema change like this would need to be discussed in the database
> working group, and can only be done in case "abuse-c:" can be made
> mandatory for all organisations - and this would also have to be
> discussed there.
> 
> From a technical point of view this change is not necessarily
> difficult to implement, provided that missing abuse-c roles could be
> created using either the existing abuse-mailbox or email attribute on
> organisations - presumably the addresses people would turn to today in
> the absence of an explicit abuse-c. So, in a way this change should
> not have a big semantic impact. Consistency would help to reduce
> complexity in documentation and business rules. It would also make it
> easier when assigning resources to new non-LIR organisations - now we
> need to check whether abuse-c has been set, because it's not mandatory
> and we often find that this makes dealing with requests longer.
> 
> But that said, the above is only a partial picture of this, and this
> should in our view be discussed in the database working group. We can
> implement after consensus is called.

I agree with that. Denis do you want to make a follow-up on DB-WG?

Piotr

-- 
gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski
E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl