Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
Im happy when we change the inetnum to have an mandatory abuse-mailbox-field, but thats nearly the same than the IRT-object.
Exept we will save some time and resources.
Really ? You cannot convert personal abuse-mail-fields to the inetnum automatically, this would be unlogical, because the intention of the LIR could have been different.
So, all LIRs will have the same work with an INETNUM-abuse-field then with an IRT object.
And then I like IRT better, because its intention was to take care of abuse anyway, and you need to change only ONE (or a couple) of IRT objects, when things changing ...
One more time - some pros from the original email:
- 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. :)
Not at all. Modern databases will use less resources when referencing objects from other tables instead of copying information to many other objects. Using the IRT object will save resources. Furthermore: the definition of the IRT object does not to be changed. Simply that the abuse-field is mandatory in the future, and that a link to all INETNUM objects to an IRT object is required. Sounds pretty easy to implement ...
- 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)
That will be confusing for everybody. What we want to achieve is a single place for the abuse contact, instead of spreading it in remarks, abuse-mailbox-fields in personal or INETNUM objects. Thats why a mandatory IRT object is the better solution to my opinion.
I personally simply want a mandatory abuse email address I can query without limitations, whatever way this is achieved, I will like it.
As Tobias said - we all agree about "single point of abuse contact information". What community disagree is this idea about IRT.
Dont think that the community dont like IRT, looks to me more that they prever it, instead of in INETNUM.
I don't agree with that point of view.
Maybe some mails from others should make that clear. What does everybody like more ? IRT ? INETNUM ?
Inserting it in INETNUM is no single point.
It is single for this inetnum. It is not single for you. That's true.
When I like to change our abuse@powerweb.de to lets say complain@powerweb.de, I will have to change ALL INETNUM objects. I would not like that ...
Good point - why not to mail it on the mailing list as a response to my email?
Just did.
But, I still believe this could be done relatively easy with simple script.
Yep, I thought that also for the needed updates with the IRT object, big LIRs should be able to insert the link and remove their remarks and other abuse-mailbox-fields pretty easily. But inserting the abuse email into the INETNUM object would mean, that nearly every small LIR also has to do scripting, it might be easier for the majority of the members to change their old objects once and then have a single IRT object for the future ... BTW: I have no opinion for you proposal under http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html yet, but find the following really interesting: "A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE NCC if the resource holder cannot be contacted". Im having hopes, if we put that together with Tobias' http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-09.html (BIG SMILE) 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 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de