On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Rimas Janusauskas wrote: [skip] RJ> 2. If accept your proposal, "organization" attribute with unique handle RJ> like person/role MUST substitute inetnum(s), which became RJ> [mandatory] [multiple] [look-up key] RJ> attribute? I'm not sure that RIPE community is ready for such significant RJ> changes... I'm very much surprized by 'multiple' status of proposed attribute. How can netblock belong to more than one company (provided they are in compliance with RIPE-185) ? Yes, there is also some possible problems with either renaming (e.g., by splitting/merging) organization or other ways of changing the "owner" of netblock. RJ> 3. You know, if not kept up to date the object will not work. Who will RJ> be responsible for it - customer or ISP? Yeah, and this is next good and in no way easy-to-answer question... RJ> Good point to start/close discussion? ;-) Definitely :) Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------