not when you are using it as a reason to affect decisions in this discussion, i.e. allowing email addresses in abuse-c:

randy

Assuming that we build the abuse[xyz], I'd suggest to use abuse-c: if we want to use a pointer, i.e. a handle. This preserves DB conventions. From my point of view there is a pro and a con in allowing an email address directly in a dedicated attribute (whatever its name): - pro: . it saves a couple of lines in a robot script, and it gets displayed irrespective of the querying tool or path . but at the same time it would not support hierarchy or tree-walk towards the encompassing address block objects - con: . it runs against a concept we tried to adhere to in designing the schemas for objects: "don't try to put attributes into the same object, for which the values will be maintained by different entities". Putting an email address directly into the "primary" objects would be such a case. The inet*num objects are the responsibility of the LIRs, maintaining (at least most specific) abuse contact information would be the responsibility of the end site (or direct up-stream connectivity provider). In many cases those are different entities. Wilfried.