Hi Niall On Monday, 29 September 2025, Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote:
Hi, Denis.
On 29 Sep 2025, at 9:17, denis walker wrote:
Because we will then be forcing the addition of mandatory data into the LIR's ORGANISATION objects, as we did with "abuse-c:", with RIPE NCC follow ups, it would need to be done as a policy, not an NWI.
If there were an existing policy which limited such addition of new mandatory data (or newly-mandatory data) into an object, this would be true.
Can you cite which existing policy does this?
Let me reverse the argument. There was no existing policy that limited the addition of a new mandatory (in some situations according to business rules) abuse-c attribute. But to do this we created an abuse-c policy. Why did we do that if it wasn't considered necessary? Didn't that set a precedent? I think we are on the borderline here of what policy means vs a simple technical change to the database semantics. We are telling network operators that they must do something and we will change the software to force this behaviour. If you don't comply with existing data, the RIPE NCC may follow up and push you to make changes. Where does the authority come from to force this behaviour? A decision lost in the archives of a mailing list? Or a published policy document that all resource holders are committed to following? It's not the same as adding an optional attribute like geofeed? You can just ignore that. We are not forcing anyone to do anything. If we create a guideline it's different. Maybe we say it would be nice if you provide an email so people don't need to open a WhatsApp account to contact you. Then it's your choice if you do anything. Cheers Denis
All the best, Niall