Hi, On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 08:50:49AM -0700, Tobias Knecht wrote:
So if you are talking about dynamic DSL ranges and hosting ranges, you can create an ORG for Hosting and DSL. In future, when you add new resources or change stuff in the abuse-c you will have to change it at one single point. and not in all ranges. So this leads to a much easier way of maintaining it. Yes the pain now will be bigger until everybody has build up the new structure and has it in place.
If I want to change stuff "in the abuse-c", I change it "in the abuse-c", so that argument just doesn't hold. This indirection, always using an org, is nice from a computer science and database design point of view, but if you want people to *accept* and *use* what you give them, you should design something that people like to use. I find the idea quite useful, and adding a single object (abuse-c) for a single purpose is perfectly fine, but having to add extra objects just to fulfill synthetic constraints is annoying me, so I don't do it, and the quality of the abuse-c: is not as good as it could be (because I don't bother to add more detailed information). So, how exactly did anyone benefit from this "must have org!" constraint? (And for the argument "it wouldn't be clear, then, which one takes precedence" - that's easy: document it - and it's quite obvious to anyone but a computer scientist, I'd say - "if there is an abuse-c:, take that one, if not, take the org:, if neither, go less specific and repeat") 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279