[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Velea
elvis at velea.eu
Thu Oct 10 18:08:48 CEST 2013
Hi, On 10/10/13 5:50 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > * Gert Doering <gert at space.net> [2013-10-08 13:33]: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:00:28PM +0200, Gilles Massen wrote: >>> Something else in mind: as before: allow abuse-c for inet*num. Prefer >> >> This. >> >> (But I've said this before :-) - I do not see it as a useful excercise >> having to create an organization: object for the sole purpose of being >> able to have a different abuse-c: for some inet(6)num object) > > ++++++1 I think that having the abuse-c role linked to the org object was a great idea. I also understand that some organisation may want to have different abuse contacts/roles defined for different IP blocks. One way on how this could be fixed, in my opinion, is by allowing an abuse-c role to be referenced in the inet*num object (but only if the inet*num object references an org that already has an abuse-c role referenced). In this case, the general abuse-c would be the one referenced in the org and the 'local' abuse-c would be the role referenced in the inet*num object. cheers, elvis
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]