Paula
thanks for polling us on this one. As owners of inetnum objects, we
(HEAnet) would have more degrees of freedom if the admin contact did not
have to be on-site, and I think admin-c might also enjoy the greater
latitude.
>From the other perspective i.e. that of someone using the database to
identify an admin contact for a network, I don't regard it as important
whether the admin-c is on-site or not. If I need to contact someone
on-site, I'll go for the tech-c.
Besides, nowadays coordinates such as e-mail and GSM numbers tend to render
meainingless the distinction between on-site and off-site.
In conclusion, I would not be unhappy if the on-site requirement for the
admin-c was dropped.
Regards.
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lir-wg(a)ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of
> Paula Caslav
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 9:53 AM
> To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net
> Cc: local-ir(a)ripe.net
> Subject: admin-c in inetnum
>
>
>
> Dear Registries,
>
> Please note that this message is send to both the lir-wg and the
> local-ir mailing lists. We would like all discussion to take place on
> the lir-wg mailing list only.
>
> We are re-evaluating the usage of the admin-c field in the inetnum
> database object.
>
> This is what ripe-185 currently says about the admin-c field:
>
> The administrative person specified in the admin-c field must be
> physically located at the site of the network. The person
> does not have
> to have technical knowledge of the network. The technical person
> specified in the tech-c field may be a network support person located
> on site, but could also be a consultant that maintains the
> network for
> the organisation. In both cases, more than one person can be
> specified.
>
> We are wondering how the admin-c field is used in practice,
> and whether
> it is really necessary for the administrative contact to be on-site.
> Usually when something goes wrong with a network, people are meant to
> try the technical contact to get things fixed. If that person
> cannot be
> reached, however, the administrative contact should be somebody
> responsible for the network who can in an emergency find someone who
> can take care of the problems. The administrative person does
> not have
> to have technical knowledge of the network, but should know who to
> contact in case of problems. For this purpose it is not strictly
> necessary for the administrative contact to be on-site. We therefore
> propose a change to the policy- that the administrative
> contact should
> be somebody who is responsible for the network, but does not
> necessarily need to be on-site.
>
> Please let us know your thoughts on this, we would especially like to
> hear how these fields are used in real-life. Have you ever
> had the need
> to contact the admin-c? Is it usefull for that person to be
> on-site or
> not?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paula Caslav
> RIPE NCC
>
