Hi, On Fri 21/Jan/2022 19:40:40 +0100 denis walker wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 13:03, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
The idea is to add extra addresses to assignment objects, irrespective of the resource holder, based on the wish of its customer who is actually connected to the resource. Would that be at all possible?
When you say " irrespective of the resource holder, based on the wish of its customer" do you mean without their consent or control? That is not possible as they maintain the assignment object. I would also say it is not desirable. That would allow an abuser to override the resource holders abuse-c and ignore all abuse reports.
Yes, I meant extra attributes linked to the assignment object. If it's not possible let's just forget it.
And, if yes, would it be acceptable by the resource holder or are there contractual impediments? Finally, if feasibility is ok, would operators take advantage of it or is it only me? > If you are talking about adding extra abuse addresses to assignment objects by agreement with the resource holder, as I explained, that is possible now by simply adding an abuse-c to the assignment .
Except that I don't have write access to the assignment object. Best Ale --