[db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at baycix.de
Thu Jan 29 14:55:17 CET 2004
Hay, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote: [...] >>>>> o The inetnum: and inet6num: objects are enhanced with an optional >>>>> attribute "abuse-c:". The value of the attribute is a nic-handle: >>>>> which must refer to an extant person: or role: object. There >>>>> may be >>>>> zero or more abuse-c: attributes in an inet*num: object. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see any reason why abuse-c: should refer to person: or role: >>>> object. Simple email address(es) would be imho just enough... >>> >>> >>> i could live with that >> >> >> >> Same here. Both would be fine. > > > From the user's viewpoint yes, from the viewpoint of having to maintain > the objects, I'd prefer a reference, because if the mailbox changes, you > just have to maintain 1 Object and not n (for arbitrary positive > integers of n) well an address like abuse at do.main seldomly changes. If someone is dumb enough to put in a personal e-mail address, well... Anyways, for cases like mergers ect. with Domains changing, i'd prefer the inital suggestion - using a *-c I don't really see the problem with creating another role-object if needed. Heck, i don't even see why mnt-irt: is considered too complicated :-) ==> It's 'abuse-c: <handle>' - not a 'abuse-to: <email>' (or something like that) for me -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]