Hi, On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 11:36:48PM +0100, Horváth Ágoston János wrote:
It's not enough to state "let's add abuse-c here and here and here". Also think about how one is supposed to return the abuse contact afterwards. It should be algorithmically feasible to fetch the abuse contact from the RIPE DB. Should inet(6)num take precedence? Should the role object? or the organisation? or maybe a route? Or a combination of these, with their parents involved?
This is why I've detailed a possible and very well-defined search order in my proposal.
And one more thing. As far as data quality goes, users are not known to keep their data up to date (sorry for the few exceptions - you're not the rule). Then you will have to start to figure out which abuse-c is outdated and which isn't; which one is still relevant and which is not. That's NOT a database, that's a job for google.
So, why is "require indirection via a organisation: and role: object" going to help with stale data? Except by making it so complicated that nobody is willingly going to use it to document abuse-handling exception for more specific subnets - in which case you've succeeded... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279