Hi John!
>Menno Pieters (Stelvio) wrote:
>> TI is an organisation that verifies the information, so that it can be
>> *trusted*. For ordinary users it may be to hard to understand this and
>> how to make sure it all correct. For IRT among eachother it may be
>> important.
>
>But all that going via the TI route gives you is a "mnt-by: TI" entry in
>your object.
Yes - what is wrong with that?
> There are other non-RIPE ways for teams to infer how much
>trust they should give to another team,
Correct.
>and overloading mnt-by seems undesirable.
Maybe, but I don't see what the downside is in using a mechanism which
is there, instead of inventing something new. Actually it was - maybe -
blue-eyed to invent a new object type. Inventing a new attribute
_without a proper syntax and semantic to go with it_ is probably not too
much better...
>Some useful changes would be renaming the IRT object to something more
>general, like Abuse (?) object
If we can reach consensus that this should be the name I expect the NCC
to make the necessary modifications to the implementation. The problem
(which was discussed in various environments more than once!) is that
different entities have a different interpretation of the word "abuse".
>and for it to be returned by default when querying an IP (or AS).
I keep hearing that again and again (and from the incident/abuse point
of view I agree!), so I'll put it onto the DB-WG.
Maybe others can try to put it onto other WGs' agendas, as this is a
pretty big change to the behaviour of the whois server.
>The seperation into an easily maintainable object which includes stuff
>in addition to email address (like postal address, pgp and phone) are
>useful enhancements to "trouble:".
>
>Cheers
>John
Wilfried.
