On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 05:18:06PM +0200, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: Dear WG Members
The idea of "abuse-c:" was to create one single place/way of documenting abuse contact details. So far all that has been achieved is to add a fourth way to document it. All the old ways ("abuse-mailbox:" in 5 object types, IRT and remarks) are still littered throughout the database.
A schema change like this would need to be discussed in the database working group, and can only be done in case "abuse-c:" can be made mandatory for all organisations - and this would also have to be discussed there.
From a technical point of view this change is not necessarily difficult to implement, provided that missing abuse-c roles could be created using either the existing abuse-mailbox or email attribute on organisations - presumably the addresses people would turn to today in the absence of an explicit abuse-c. So, in a way this change should not have a big semantic impact. Consistency would help to reduce complexity in documentation and business rules. It would also make it easier when assigning resources to new non-LIR organisations - now we need to check whether abuse-c has been set, because it's not mandatory and we often find that this makes dealing with requests longer.
But that said, the above is only a partial picture of this, and this should in our view be discussed in the database working group. We can implement after consensus is called.
I agree with that. Denis do you want to make a follow-up on DB-WG? Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl