On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 03:26:23PM +0100, Tobias Knecht wrote: Hi Tobias
But nevertheless:
Is there any other concern or positive feedback about making the IRT Object mandatory?
Is there any other concern or positive feedback using the IRT Object?
Are there any other concerns or positive feedback?
Are there any other questions or suggestions?
Yes. Why not introduce mandatory abuse-mailbox field into inet(6)num and aut-num? - This meet the need for single place for abuse contact information. - The inet(6)num and aut-num has no whois server query restrictions. - The inet(6)num and aut-num are already existing. Syntax change would be probably easy to implement for RIPE NCC. - The non-mandatory IRT object could still be used for mature, well established IRT teams. - Reduced resource consumption: there will be no extra objects in DB (we save some disk space) and there will be no extra references (we save some whois servers' processors time). Both means: we save some money. :) - IRT object still can be used as it is used right now (if LIR want's to monitor abuse, even if the inet(6)num or aut-num is handled by its customer) This is of course not connected with leaving or not abuse-mailbox in person/role/organisation object types. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl