Hi John!

Menno Pieters (Stelvio) wrote:

...

TI is an organisation that verifies the information, so that it can be *trusted*. For ordinary users it may be to hard to understand this and how to make sure it all correct. For IRT among eachother it may be important.

But all that going via the TI route gives you is a "mnt-by: TI" entry in your object.

Yes - what is wrong with that?

There are other non-RIPE ways for teams to infer how much trust they should give to another team,

Correct.

and overloading mnt-by seems undesirable.

Maybe, but I don't see what the downside is in using a mechanism which is there, instead of inventing something new. Actually it was - maybe - blue-eyed to invent a new object type. Inventing a new attribute _without a proper syntax and semantic to go with it_ is probably not too much better...

Some useful changes would be renaming the IRT object to something more general, like Abuse (?) object

If we can reach consensus that this should be the name I expect the NCC to make the necessary modifications to the implementation. The problem (which was discussed in various environments more than once!) is that different entities have a different interpretation of the word "abuse".

and for it to be returned by default when querying an IP (or AS).

I keep hearing that again and again (and from the incident/abuse point of view I agree!), so I'll put it onto the DB-WG. Maybe others can try to put it onto other WGs' agendas, as this is a pretty big change to the behaviour of the whois server.

The seperation into an easily maintainable object which includes stuff in addition to email address (like postal address, pgp and phone) are useful enhancements to "trouble:".

Cheers John

Wilfried.