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