phone number required for person objects
Hi, TL;DR: stop requiring the "phone" attribute for person objects. This is something that I quickly brought up during the db-wg session at RIPE84 but thought would be good to bring up here as well. Currently you need to specify a phone number for person objects but not for role objects, which I think should be fixed (as in not require it for person objects either). While there is the argument to be made to not encourage use of person objects or whatever, I do think that we should make sure that they are functionally the same as to prevent people putting PII in role objects. This is so we can still keep track of how many personal contact objects there are, which would be more difficult if people used role objects for personal contacts. -Cynthia
Hi, On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:22:53PM +0200, Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote:
TL;DR: stop requiring the "phone" attribute for person objects.
This is something that I quickly brought up during the db-wg session at RIPE84 but thought would be good to bring up here as well.
Currently you need to specify a phone number for person objects but not for role objects, which I think should be fixed (as in not require it for person objects either).
I'm not sure I agree - as in "why is there a person/role object in the first place? -> so I know who to call in case things need an urgent resolution!". And, calling people needs phone numbers... So, I agree that the inconsistency between person: and role: does not make much sense (I might see a role: object and want a phone number to call...) - but the more fundamental question is "if that object is of no use to a person looking for a point of contact, why have that object there in the first place?"... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, Cynthia On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 12:39, Gert Doering via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:22:53PM +0200, Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote:
TL;DR: stop requiring the "phone" attribute for person objects.
This is something that I quickly brought up during the db-wg session at RIPE84 but thought would be good to bring up here as well.
Currently you need to specify a phone number for person objects but not for role objects, which I think should be fixed (as in not require it for person objects either).
I'm not sure I agree - as in "why is there a person/role object in the first place? -> so I know who to call in case things need an urgent resolution!".
And, calling people needs phone numbers...
And if they want you to call them, they will offer you an optional phone number. Otherwise you can send them an email or fill in their web form. If someone is operating a network and thinks it is important for anyone to be able to contact them quickly if they detect a problem, they will offer the means to do that, even if it is by using optional data. If their network problems don't need 24/7 cover with immediate problem solving they will respond to an email.
So, I agree that the inconsistency between person: and role: does not make much sense (I might see a role: object and want a phone number to call...) - but the more fundamental question is "if that object is of no use to a person looking for a point of contact, why have that object there in the first place?"...
An email address or a URL is a point of contact. A natural person working alone from home running a public network may not have the capability to respond to problems with such urgency. So why would they give you a phone number? Not all networks are equal - in size, importance, staffing, operation... There is a fine balance between what a registry needs and what someone is willing to give. If you cross the line, the database will be full of rubbish. Then we have to consider verification on entry and regular validation to ensure it is still correct. cheers denis proposal author
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 --
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
(this reply in mainly targeted towards the points Gert made) Hi, denis summarized my take on this pretty well here and we (me, denis, and I think William Sylvester too) had a brief chat about this at RIPE84 which in my view pretty much boiled down to: 1. email is the de-facto standard method of communication and is very reasonable to be required for contacts 2. any other method of contact should probably be optional/voluntary, this would include things like phone number, fax number, and probably postal address. As denis also pointed out, if you want to operate a NOC that people can call into to fix issues urgently, that is fine, you can add that attribute then. Requiring phone numbers results in cases where someone might just write a phone number like +46000000000 or put in a personal phone number which might also be unsupported for NOC purposes. I can tell you that if you call the number listed for the tech contact for my network, I will either not pick up the phone or if I do I will likely just tell you to send an email instead. Clearly requiring networks like mine to put a phone number there just results in PII being published for no good reason. I would assume that many small networks do not operate NOCs that can respond to phone calls 24/7 or even phone calls at all, especially from non-customers. P.S. Yes all of these networks could just use role objects and as such not have to publish phone numbers but I argued for why they shouldn't be required as it seemed to me like Gert didn't quite understand why I think it is a bad idea to require them, beyond the inconsistency. -Cynthia On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:56 PM denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Gert, Cynthia
On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 12:39, Gert Doering via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:22:53PM +0200, Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote:
TL;DR: stop requiring the "phone" attribute for person objects.
This is something that I quickly brought up during the db-wg session at RIPE84 but thought would be good to bring up here as well.
Currently you need to specify a phone number for person objects but not for role objects, which I think should be fixed (as in not require it for person objects either).
I'm not sure I agree - as in "why is there a person/role object in the first place? -> so I know who to call in case things need an urgent resolution!".
And, calling people needs phone numbers...
And if they want you to call them, they will offer you an optional phone number. Otherwise you can send them an email or fill in their web form. If someone is operating a network and thinks it is important for anyone to be able to contact them quickly if they detect a problem, they will offer the means to do that, even if it is by using optional data. If their network problems don't need 24/7 cover with immediate problem solving they will respond to an email.
So, I agree that the inconsistency between person: and role: does not make much sense (I might see a role: object and want a phone number to call...) - but the more fundamental question is "if that object is of no use to a person looking for a point of contact, why have that object there in the first place?"...
An email address or a URL is a point of contact. A natural person working alone from home running a public network may not have the capability to respond to problems with such urgency. So why would they give you a phone number? Not all networks are equal - in size, importance, staffing, operation...
There is a fine balance between what a registry needs and what someone is willing to give. If you cross the line, the database will be full of rubbish. Then we have to consider verification on entry and regular validation to ensure it is still correct.
cheers denis proposal author
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 --
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 Wed, May 25, 2022 at 04:50:57PM +0200, Cynthia Revström wrote:
P.S. Yes all of these networks could just use role objects and as such not have to publish phone numbers but I argued for why they shouldn't be required as it seemed to me like Gert didn't quite understand why I think it is a bad idea to require them, beyond the inconsistency.
Maybe I expressed myself badly. I was primarily describing my use case "why would I want to look at *anything* in the RIPE-DB" - and that is, usually, because something is broken and I find myself in the need to contact people. In that situation, their network might be broken (or mine, or something in between) so e-mail or a web form might just not work - this is why we have a phone system. If nothing is broken, I do not look at person or role objects at all. That said, of course having "no phone number" is a better data set than "a phone number that looks good to the DB but is useless" :-) *That* said - if people do not want to be contacted about issues with their network, then we should ask ourselves if putting these contacts into the RIPE-DB is the correct thing to do - phone numbers or not - to me this is the prime reason we store contact data there, to reach responsible persons/teams when there is something with their network that needs attention. On this particular discussion: I agree that it makes no sense to have the phone number optional on a role: (*this* is usually a NOC that has a phone...) and mandatory on a person: - make it optional on both. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Even if it could mean that email might also be broken that is not necessarily the case. Many companies use cloud services for email so they might be completely unaffected by their network issues. Also just because something is broken doesn't mean it's so broken email stops working. And of course, PBX systems can also experience issues if there is a big incident with the network. You also have to consider that there might not be a PBX system or a dedicated NOC number even for some companies that might still have 10-20 employees. While I do get your point, I stand firm in thinking that the networks can decide if they want to accept calls or not themselves. I would like to know if my network is experiencing issues but we have emails and personally I feel comfortable relying on them to work well enough seeing as they are with an external provider that has nothing to do with my network. -Cynthia On Wed, May 25, 2022, 17:07 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 04:50:57PM +0200, Cynthia Revström wrote:
P.S. Yes all of these networks could just use role objects and as such not have to publish phone numbers but I argued for why they shouldn't be required as it seemed to me like Gert didn't quite understand why I think it is a bad idea to require them, beyond the inconsistency.
Maybe I expressed myself badly. I was primarily describing my use case "why would I want to look at *anything* in the RIPE-DB" - and that is, usually, because something is broken and I find myself in the need to contact people. In that situation, their network might be broken (or mine, or something in between) so e-mail or a web form might just not work - this is why we have a phone system.
If nothing is broken, I do not look at person or role objects at all.
That said, of course having "no phone number" is a better data set than "a phone number that looks good to the DB but is useless" :-)
*That* said - if people do not want to be contacted about issues with their network, then we should ask ourselves if putting these contacts into the RIPE-DB is the correct thing to do - phone numbers or not - to me this is the prime reason we store contact data there, to reach responsible persons/teams when there is something with their network that needs attention.
On this particular discussion: I agree that it makes no sense to have the phone number optional on a role: (*this* is usually a NOC that has a phone...) and mandatory on a person: - make it optional on both.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:16 AM Cynthia Revström via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Even if it could mean that email might also be broken that is not necessarily the case.
Yes.
Many companies use cloud services for email so they might be completely unaffected by their network issues.
Yes.
Also just because something is broken doesn't mean it's so broken email stops working.
Yes.
And of course, PBX systems can also experience issues if there is a big incident with the network.
Yes. And many companies outsource switchboard type numbers to answering services with access to a call tree.
You also have to consider that there might not be a PBX system or a dedicated NOC number even for some companies that might still have 10-20 employees.
While I do get your point, I stand firm in thinking that the networks can decide if they want to accept calls or not themselves.
I would like to know if my network is experiencing issues but we have emails and personally I feel comfortable relying on them to work well enough seeing as they are with an external provider that has nothing to do with my network.
If we want to make a particular communications medium required, making it e-mail seems more practical than making it phone. But if we are looking at changing from phone being mandatory, why should we dictate what the mandatory technology is? Why couldn't there be a choice and just a requirement that a choice is made? Kind regards, Leo
The reason behind this is that email is the de facto standard for internet communication, especially between organizations. I am not sure what kind of ISP/other network org doesn't do email at all. There are also benefits from requiring everyone to support it as then it will always be an option. Email is also required for abuse contacts, so as long as that's not changing, they will need to have some kind of email thing setup anyways. You also need email to have a RIPE NCC Access account as far as I know. -Cynthia On Wed, May 25, 2022, 18:38 Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:16 AM Cynthia Revström via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Even if it could mean that email might also be broken that is not
necessarily the case.
Yes.
Many companies use cloud services for email so they might be completely unaffected by their network issues.
Yes.
Also just because something is broken doesn't mean it's so broken email stops working.
Yes.
And of course, PBX systems can also experience issues if there is a big incident with the network.
Yes. And many companies outsource switchboard type numbers to answering services with access to a call tree.
You also have to consider that there might not be a PBX system or a dedicated NOC number even for some companies that might still have 10-20 employees.
While I do get your point, I stand firm in thinking that the networks can decide if they want to accept calls or not themselves.
I would like to know if my network is experiencing issues but we have emails and personally I feel comfortable relying on them to work well enough seeing as they are with an external provider that has nothing to do with my network.
If we want to make a particular communications medium required, making it e-mail seems more practical than making it phone.
But if we are looking at changing from phone being mandatory, why should we dictate what the mandatory technology is? Why couldn't there be a choice and just a requirement that a choice is made?
Kind regards,
Leo
I forgot to mention this
[...], why should we dictate what the mandatory technology is?
I kinda agree with you here if you by "we" mean the db-wg, this might be a larger question that should involve multiple other working groups too. But the RIPE community should decide this imo. -Cynthia On Wed, May 25, 2022, 19:01 Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
The reason behind this is that email is the de facto standard for internet communication, especially between organizations.
I am not sure what kind of ISP/other network org doesn't do email at all.
There are also benefits from requiring everyone to support it as then it will always be an option.
Email is also required for abuse contacts, so as long as that's not changing, they will need to have some kind of email thing setup anyways.
You also need email to have a RIPE NCC Access account as far as I know.
-Cynthia
On Wed, May 25, 2022, 18:38 Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:16 AM Cynthia Revström via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Even if it could mean that email might also be broken that is not
necessarily the case.
Yes.
Many companies use cloud services for email so they might be completely unaffected by their network issues.
Yes.
Also just because something is broken doesn't mean it's so broken email stops working.
Yes.
And of course, PBX systems can also experience issues if there is a big incident with the network.
Yes. And many companies outsource switchboard type numbers to answering services with access to a call tree.
You also have to consider that there might not be a PBX system or a dedicated NOC number even for some companies that might still have 10-20 employees.
While I do get your point, I stand firm in thinking that the networks can decide if they want to accept calls or not themselves.
I would like to know if my network is experiencing issues but we have emails and personally I feel comfortable relying on them to work well enough seeing as they are with an external provider that has nothing to do with my network.
If we want to make a particular communications medium required, making it e-mail seems more practical than making it phone.
But if we are looking at changing from phone being mandatory, why should we dictate what the mandatory technology is? Why couldn't there be a choice and just a requirement that a choice is made?
Kind regards,
Leo
Hi, On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:04 AM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
I forgot to mention this
[...], why should we dictate what the mandatory technology is?
I kinda agree with you here if you by "we" mean the db-wg, this might be a larger question that should involve multiple other working groups too. But the RIPE community should decide this imo.
I think that the reason phone was mandatory is that it was the de-facto standard. I agree that e-mail is now. But will it remain so? If we are building for the future then we should consider the possibility that the future will look different from today. Regards, Leo
Hi Leo On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 20:28, Leo Vegoda via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:04 AM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
I forgot to mention this
[...], why should we dictate what the mandatory technology is?
I kinda agree with you here if you by "we" mean the db-wg, this might be a larger question that should involve multiple other working groups too. But the RIPE community should decide this imo.
I think that the reason phone was mandatory is that it was the de-facto standard. I agree that e-mail is now. But will it remain so? If we are building for the future then we should consider the possibility that the future will look different from today.
The policy proposal relates to today and going forwards. We can't guess what tech will be the most widely used tomorrow. So either we write email into the policy today and change the policy if and when that changes, or we write into the policy something like "One mandatory means of contact must be defined in the ROLE object. This one method will be determined by RIPE community consensus and may be changed in the future if the community consensus prefers an alternative method." The wording is a bit clumsy but more generalised and allows changes to the contact method without a policy update. cheers denis proposal author
Regards,
Leo
--
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
Personally, I think that we should write e-mail into the policy as I do think requiring a policy change to change this is reasonable given how I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future. Sure it might be different in 10 years, but maybe we can be ok with needing to use the PDP if/when that occurs. -Cynthia On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:58 PM denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Leo
On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 20:28, Leo Vegoda via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:04 AM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
I forgot to mention this
[...], why should we dictate what the mandatory technology is?
I kinda agree with you here if you by "we" mean the db-wg, this might be a larger question that should involve multiple other working groups too. But the RIPE community should decide this imo.
I think that the reason phone was mandatory is that it was the de-facto standard. I agree that e-mail is now. But will it remain so? If we are building for the future then we should consider the possibility that the future will look different from today.
The policy proposal relates to today and going forwards. We can't guess what tech will be the most widely used tomorrow. So either we write email into the policy today and change the policy if and when that changes, or we write into the policy something like "One mandatory means of contact must be defined in the ROLE object. This one method will be determined by RIPE community consensus and may be changed in the future if the community consensus prefers an alternative method." The wording is a bit clumsy but more generalised and allows changes to the contact method without a policy update.
cheers denis proposal author
Regards,
Leo
--
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 Denis, On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 11:58 AM denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote: [...]
I think that the reason phone was mandatory is that it was the de-facto standard. I agree that e-mail is now. But will it remain so? If we are building for the future then we should consider the possibility that the future will look different from today.
The policy proposal relates to today and going forwards. We can't guess what tech will be the most widely used tomorrow.
Yes.
So either we write email into the policy today and change the policy if and when that changes, or we write into the policy something like "One mandatory means of contact must be defined in the ROLE object. This one method will be determined by RIPE community consensus and may be changed in the future if the community consensus prefers an alternative method." The wording is a bit clumsy but more generalised and allows changes to the contact method without a policy update.
I was actually suggesting that instead of saying that technology #1 is mandatory and technology #2 is optional we just say that one of the supported technologies must be listed. Then we can add and remove technologies as needed without having to make decisions about what people *must* use. But if we must define a single technology that is mandatory then e-mail is a better choice than phone. Kind regards, Leo
Hi, On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:02:48PM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
I was actually suggesting that instead of saying that technology #1 is mandatory and technology #2 is optional we just say that one of the supported technologies must be listed. Then we can add and remove technologies as needed without having to make decisions about what people *must* use.
I like that suggestion.
But if we must define a single technology that is mandatory then e-mail is a better choice than phone.
I actually disagree with that - speaking from my use case as a user of the RIPE DB. If I bother going there, it's urgent, and I want something to happen *now* (otherwise, I'm not going to bother). E-Mail might arrive with any delay, or never, and feedback might come, or not. So, no, *for the purpose of contact data in the RIPE DB*, I do not think that "e-mail is better than phone". (Of course I personally hate it if people call me. But people who do so pretty quickly learn the difference between "it is urgent *now*, so phone is perfectly fine" and "an e-mail would have been sufficient") Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 2:33 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: [...]
But if we must define a single technology that is mandatory then e-mail is a better choice than phone.
I actually disagree with that - speaking from my use case as a user of the RIPE DB. If I bother going there, it's urgent, and I want something to happen *now* (otherwise, I'm not going to bother). E-Mail might arrive with any delay, or never, and feedback might come, or not.
Do we have any data on how useful phone is nowadays? Is it even possible to measure in a meaningful way? If phone is genuinely useful then I have no objection. I suspect that it is becoming less useful as each day passes. But that is purely a personal perspective and not backed up with actual measurement. Are there measurements that can inform our discussion? Thanks, Leo
Hi On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 23:33, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:02:48PM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
I was actually suggesting that instead of saying that technology #1 is mandatory and technology #2 is optional we just say that one of the supported technologies must be listed. Then we can add and remove technologies as needed without having to make decisions about what people *must* use.
I like that suggestion.
But if we must define a single technology that is mandatory then e-mail is a better choice than phone.
I actually disagree with that - speaking from my use case as a user of the RIPE DB. If I bother going there, it's urgent, and I want something to happen *now* (otherwise, I'm not going to bother). E-Mail might arrive with any delay, or never, and feedback might come, or not.
So, no, *for the purpose of contact data in the RIPE DB*, I do not think that "e-mail is better than phone".
Don't forget we are talking about all contacts here, not only the tech contacts. So we are also considering the admin and abuse contacts as well as route ping and DNS zone contacts and contacts for external services like RIPE Atlas. For many of these a mandatory email is almost certainly the better option than a mandatory phone. I can't imagine anyone dictating an abuse report over the phone. ROLE objects can be used for any contact and for many smaller operations probably their one ROLE object is used for all their contacts. Now of course we can consider the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute as a special case. As the name suggests, it must be an email address. But across the board, when considering all contact types in use today, if we require one mandatory contact perhaps email edges ahead of the phone. It is also easier to set up a non personal email address than a non personal phone number. But also keep in mind that we are talking about a mandatory baseline communication method to make sure a contact is contactable, otherwise the contact has no purpose. All the other methods are optionally available as well. Any tech help desk that operates a 24/7 service is almost certainly going to provide a phone number in addition to an email address. cheers denis proposal author
(Of course I personally hate it if people call me. But people who do so pretty quickly learn the difference between "it is urgent *now*, so phone is perfectly fine" and "an e-mail would have been sufficient")
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 12:55:50AM +0200, denis walker wrote:
I can't imagine anyone dictating an abuse report over the phone.
I *can* imagine myself calling someone and saying "there is a massive DoS attack coming out of your network. NOW. This is urgent". Abuse is more than "yeah, someone on your network sent spam, slap him when you feel it's convenient". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:28 PM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:04 AM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
I forgot to mention this
[...], why should we dictate what the mandatory technology is?
I kinda agree with you here if you by "we" mean the db-wg, this might be a larger question that should involve multiple other working groups too. But the RIPE community should decide this imo.
I think that the reason phone was mandatory is that it was the de-facto standard. I agree that e-mail is now. But will it remain so? If we are building for the future then we should consider the possibility that the future will look different from today.
It might not remain the standard but I also don't think it makes sense to plan for the future too much here as it is a relatively simple thing to change in the future if/when that happens. Yes we can consider the possibility but I don't think it really changes anything for what we do right now given how minimal it really is in terms of change. -Cynthia
Leo Vegoda via db-wg wrote on 25/05/2022 19:28:
I think that the reason phone was mandatory is that it was the de-facto standard. I agree that e-mail is now. But will it remain so? If we are building for the future then we should consider the possibility that the future will look different from today.
adding new keys to ripe181++ is not a problem. "discord:", anyone? Or "instagram:"? Nick
Hi, On May 25, 2022, at 10:01 AM, Cynthia Revström via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
The reason behind this is that email is the de facto standard for internet communication, especially between organizations.
IIRC, the original point of multiple methodologies of contact was due to the desire to avoid single points of failure. That is, it was deemed (back in the day) unlikely that a network operator would be able to bork both their email and their phone (and their fax) at the same time, particular given phone/fax was based on different technology. Of course, since most phone/fax is now IP-based, that logic may not hold. Still, in keeping with the original intent of SPOF avoidance, I’d imagine a mandatory email + one other (technology neutral) would make sense. Regards, -drc
Hi On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 17:07, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
*That* said - if people do not want to be contacted about issues with their network, then we should ask ourselves if putting these contacts into the RIPE-DB is the correct thing to do - phone numbers or not - to me this is the prime reason we store contact data there, to reach responsible persons/teams when there is something with their network that needs attention.
It may be that a network operator simply doesn't have the capability to operate a tech support desk 24/7. That doesn't mean they don't want to be contacted or that they don't want to know there is a problem. If you detect an issue at 8pm, they are not available to fix it this evening so no point listing a phone number. If you send them an email they can look into the issue tomorrow. So there is still value in listing their (email) contact details in the database.
On this particular discussion: I agree that it makes no sense to have the phone number optional on a role: (*this* is usually a NOC that has a phone...) and mandatory on a person: - make it optional on both.
For now yes I agree to make it optional in both. In the long term we need to get rid of the PERSON object then we won't have discrepancies cheers denis proposal author.
participants (6)
-
Cynthia Revström -
David Conrad -
denis walker -
Gert Doering -
Leo Vegoda -
Nick Hilliard