[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 ]
Havard Eidnes
he at uninett.no
Wed Mar 9 22:02:34 CET 2016
>>>> I would like abuse-c: much more if it were changed in two ways: >>>> >>>> - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects >>>> - permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role: >>> >>> This boils down to what I thought would have been the better >>> implementation all along. > > Better is a relative word. It would be better to improve the > operational usability and solve the problems you have without breaking > the design. > > I have worked on the design, development and support of this database > for 15 years. I know it inside out. I know what problems it has. I > have seen the mistakes both new and old users have made. I have seen > the crazy things users have done because the database semantics, > syntax, business rules allowed it. Frankly, I fail to see how that is that relevant to the above suggestion. > If you make the changes you are asking for I guarantee within 2 or 3 > years people will be saying abuse-c is a failure, lets invent > something new to fix the mess. What sort of mess? Can you please be a bit more explicit? > The trouble with these technical mailing lists is it is the same very > very small number of people out of the 12k members and other > interested parties who keep pushing the same ideas to fix your > problems regardless of the consequences. As long as it works OK for > you, everything must be fine. None of you are willing to think out of > the box. I proposed some options for fixing these problems 2 years ago > on RIPE Labs. I am not saying they are the best solutions, but no one > has even commented on them in 2 years. > > This is not an open, bottom up process. This is a cartel of old timers > who make all the decisions so they get their own way. This needs to be > fixed. "Thanks" for the ad hominem. Instead of discussing the merits of the above suggestion in a reasoned manner, I get told that I'm part of an old-mans-club or worse. I may be old, but that was nevertheless uncalled for, IMHO. Best regards, - Håvard
- 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 ]