Dear colleagues, (please see below)
On 5 Aug 2024, at 20:24, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 08:03, Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Cynthia made a suggestion in January (see below) and there were two replies in support, but it was not progressed.
If I may summarise the thread:
(1) Make "phone:" optional in person objects AND (2) Make either "phone:" or "e-mail:" mandatory in person and role objects AND (From Peter's reply) (3) Make "address:" optional in person and role objects
I agree with Cynthia that we should try to align person and role object requirements. I also support changes that update contact information requirements so that they align with our changing society.
Postal delivery schedules are changing in some countries so that they are less frequent. And geographically distributed teams don't rely on postal mail for business communications now as they did 20 years ago. Of course, the registry will probably need a postal address. But that is different from contact information in the RIPE database.
If we make changes along these lines, I'd like to do it in a way that adds new contact methods. We shouldn't just add more flexibility in the current contact methods. We should also consider new methods, as discussed in agenda item C at RIPE 88:
Quoting from your presentation, regarding CONTACT-URI : "If this is good enough to deliver an improvement, should it become an NWI?" "If so, should support for private URIs be included or just the HTTPS redirection service?" Is the problem statement clear? Can these two proposals be combined into a single NWI ? Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC