[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
denis
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Mar 7 21:05:50 CET 2016
Hi Gert On 07/03/2016 13:42, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 06:06:04PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> On 07-Mar-2016, at 6:03 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: >>> >>> - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects - permit abuse-c: to >>> point to a normal person: object, not only role: >> >> [???] >> >> I???m actually +1 with these. And in fact even with the current >> spec there isn???t anything that says a person object can???t be >> abuse-c yes there is. It must be a ROLE object. - though an outfit of any significant size might prefer to >> add a role account just so that multiple people can receive and >> handle abuse complaints. > > Yeah, for our LIR abuse contact, this totally makes sense - there is > a department handling this (SPCA-RIPE), so the *option* of having a > role: here is good. > > OTOH for my personal PI /24, the only abuse-c: ever will be me > personally, so not being able to reference my person: object but > having to create a role: for myself is a bit silly. It is called standardisation. Although I am sure you will not believe me it does actually simplify the data model if you do things in a standard way :) cheers denis > > gert >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]