lists@help.org wrote:
Please supply a method instead of critizising the mandatory field ...
Nothing wrong with a mandatory
Ah, there we are, more substance.
field but you need to clean up the entire database first.
Why ? The abuse-c will automatically lead to a cleanup. The members will have to alter their objects, when the abuse-c is mandatory, and surely a lot of them will clean them up. The members could receive some guidelines from the NCC, when its there, like: "remove abuse information from the remarks, remove iRT objects only used for an abuse address aso ... And how: how will you clean up the database ? btw: this is a job for the db-wg ...
individual fields and it all should be coordinated with all the RIR's.
Its a good idea and it should be IANAs work, but until then ?
For instance I recently saw a record in ARIN that says:
Address: Private City: Private StateProv: NJ PostalCode: 99999
The response from ARIN was: "If you believe the information below is false, can you provide more detail regarding the information you believe is inaccurate and ARIN will research and take the appropriate action." I pointed out the whole record was false and I never heard back and it was never fixed. I don't see the point of making anything mandatory if this is how things are done. Once these things get fixed I would agree with the mandatory field.
Why in that order ? Please make this more clear. Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================