Sorry for not replying in-thread, I don't have the correct email in this account. I whole-heartedly agree with 2010-08, though I still think abuse-c would have been a better name. While the person object of an abuse-c is not 100% appropriate for a group, itr expands to incident response team. What is an incident that needs to be reported to the itr? Spam, yes. Cracking, yes. DoS, yes. But what de-announcing a prefix? That would need to go to the NOC. admin-c would perfectly describe this distinction. All that being said, what's done's done. To get to the part where I stop babbling and give (hopefully) useful feedback: I really like the proposal, but I think the English could be improved. As it is, it reads a bit strained and is not 100% correct, imo. As it is, the text can be interpreted to require an update of irt on all updates of referencing objects which is obviously not Tobias' intention. Anyway, here goes: ---8<--- 1. Compulsory IRT Object A reference to an irt object is mandatory for the following RIPE database objects: inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num. All newly created and updated objects of these types must reference an irt object. The "abuse-mailbox" attribute is mandatory for all irt objects. Addition of an "abuse-mailbox" attribute in a non-irt object will be rejected. All "abuse-mailbox" attributes in non-irt objects will be deleted by the end of 2012. ---8<--- As an aside, what happens when I update a non-irt object which has a legacy abuse-mailbox attribute without touching it? Will this be rejected or allowed? 2010-08 does not answer this question. which should be fixed, imo. Thanks, especially to Tobias, Richard