[db-wg] irt object useless
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] irt object useless
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] irt object useless
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andre Koopal
andre.koopal at nld.mci.com
Fri May 27 12:29:28 CEST 2005
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:07:23PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > Andre Koopal wrote: > > >Last week we updated all our allocations with an IRT object. > > > >However, this ended out to be quite useless as the IRT object isn't shown > >in a default query, which 99% of joe-user will do, they don't know to > >specify -c. > > > >Another problem I noticed is that the irt-nfy isn't suppressed if you do > >specify -c. > > > >So I want to propose to show the IRT object in a default query and to also > >hide the irt-nfy attribute in that default query. > > > > > I definately think that the "irt-nfy:" attribute should be hidden - this > was basically an oversight with the abuse change proposal on my side. > The "upd-to:" and "mnt-nfy:" should also be filtered. > > > As for the "-c" flag, I would propose that the default behaviour should be: > > 1. Perform a lookup that works the same as "-c" today, and if it would > return some INETNUM objects, then finish (returning IRT objects as today) > > 2. If no INETNUM objects would be found, fall back to the current behaviour > > We could have the "-c" flag change its meaning, to give you the query > without consideration for the "mnt-irt:" attribute, just like today. > > > APNIC has a model where members can hide information about their > assignments: > > http://www.apnic.net/news/2004/0930.html > > By implementing the "-c" change above, the maintainer managing the Whois > database records int the RIPE Database could decide which block users > would get back on a query. I think that this would give the benefits of > the APNIC approach (for me, getting users to the "best" person to help > them with their problems), without what I consider a drawback of the > APNIC approach (there is "secret" data in the database). > > > A futher suggestion that Wilfried (I think) mentioned to me, was to add > "mnt-irt:" to the AUT-NUM object type. > As I don't see any more comments on this, have we already reached consensus? Wilfried: how to best proceed with this? If there is hardly any discussion about this, it seems silly to wait for a RIPE meeting on this. Regards, Andre Koopal MCI
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] irt object useless
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] irt object useless
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]