Phone number requirement for person objects
Hi, In the DB-WG interim session I mentioned that there's currently a discrepancy between person objects and role objects with regards to contact information. More specifically, person objects currently require a phone number while role objects require an email address. I think we should try to bring person objects more in line with role objects by removing the phone number requirement. Ideally I would want it to be mandatory to have either a phone number or an email address in order to not lose any flexibility but I'm not sure if that is possible. During the session I asked if anyone was opposed to the idea and no one said they were so I would assume that this is relatively uncontroversial but please let me know what you think. -Cynthia
On 2024 Jan 17 (Wed) at 17:08:38 +0100 (+0100), Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote: :Hi, : :In the DB-WG interim session I mentioned that there's currently a :discrepancy between person objects and role objects with regards to :contact information. :More specifically, person objects currently require a phone number :while role objects require an email address. : :I think we should try to bring person objects more in line with role :objects by removing the phone number requirement. Ideally I would want :it to be mandatory to have either a phone number or an email address :in order to not lose any flexibility but I'm not sure if that is :possible. : :During the session I asked if anyone was opposed to the idea and no :one said they were so I would assume that this is relatively :uncontroversial but please let me know what you think. : :-Cynthia Fully agreed. And while we are at it, address attributes should be made optional for person and role objects. -- Nasrudin walked into a teahouse and declaimed, "The moon is more useful than the sun." "Why?", he was asked. "Because at night we need the light more."
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 08:09, Cynthia Revström via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: [...]
I think we should try to bring person objects more in line with role objects by removing the phone number requirement. Ideally I would want it to be mandatory to have either a phone number or an email address in order to not lose any flexibility but I'm not sure if that is possible.
+1
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 According to the NWI process, can this suggestion be turned into an NWI? https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/numbered-work-items/ Link to January thread: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2024-January/thread.html There was also a previous discussion in May 2022 which is relevant (titled "phone number required for person objects"): https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2022-May/thread.html Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
On 17 Jan 2024, at 17:08, Cynthia Revström via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
In the DB-WG interim session I mentioned that there's currently a discrepancy between person objects and role objects with regards to contact information. More specifically, person objects currently require a phone number while role objects require an email address.
I think we should try to bring person objects more in line with role objects by removing the phone number requirement. Ideally I would want it to be mandatory to have either a phone number or an email address in order to not lose any flexibility but I'm not sure if that is possible.
During the session I asked if anyone was opposed to the idea and no one said they were so I would assume that this is relatively uncontroversial but please let me know what you think.
-Cynthia
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
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: https://ripe88.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/db-wg/ Kind regards, Leo
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
On 2024 Aug 06 (Tue) at 15:59:39 +0200 (+0200), Edward Shryane wrote: :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: :> :> https://ripe88.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/db-wg/ :> : :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 I think Leo's problem statement is clear and I would support making this an NWI, but I would prefer that these be separate NWIs. I seem to remember that there were multiple options for CONTACT-URI that we would need to work through, and I don't want to block a simple task from being done in the meantime. -- Life is like an analogy.
participants (4)
-
Cynthia Revström -
Edward Shryane -
Leo Vegoda -
Peter Hessler