Hi, On 26 May 2025, at 15:21, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
One reason I left it as optional in the text is some pushback I had when drafting it from people who told me that they almost never used e-mail any more. I'm not convinced that e-mail is as common as many would like. Nonetheless, there's no need to run. A walking pace is fine. I have no objection to e-mail being retained as mandatory.
Yes, to some degree the fragmentation in contacts already exists, but I would prefer the RIPE database not to facilitate it too much. Especially when it involves closed platforms owned entirely by a single corporation. I do not see an ideal solution, but keeping e-mail mandatory for now feels reasonable.
Are you intentionally leaving out zone-c and abuse-c, which, if I'm not mistaken, are also references to role or person objects? I understand the abuse-mailbox attribute being a special additional requirement, but reading your proposal literally, we would still require a postal address when a role is used as abuse-c and tech-c, but not when it's only used for tech-c.
I don't know whether part of this is oversight or intent, but I think the NWI should at least explicitly mention zone-c/abuse-c.
My thought was to work in Database WG to establish the capability. Then, if the people in the DNS and Security WGs want to take advantage of it they can do so.
That does not sound practical to me. We should not end up with radically different layouts and validation rules for a role/person in the DB, depending on whether it is referenced from a tech-c or a zone-c. If we want to defer zone-c/abuse-c to other WGs, they should at least be involved early - I would prefer us to adjust role/person in a single change to a new set of requirements. It would be confusing to say to users "yes, your role object is valid, but you tried to use it in a zone-c, and you can't do that until you remove the signal contact attribute". Sasha