> > But there is an agreement between us, and sometimes (due to payment
> > problems, violating the agreement, spam, etc.) I need to suspend or even
> > remove objects.
> ...which means that you want to/have to keep responsibility to maintain the
> data in the repository, right?
Not right. User is keeping responsibility to maintain the data, so their
mnt-by is in the objects.
My aim is (at least) to bill user, and it can be done different ways (once,
yearly, quarterly, by crediting user for sometime, whatever). And I need the
mechanism to let that user have to pay ;) (and not to violate agreements by
other ways) and remove objects if it doesn't - but NOT to keep information up
to date in RIPE DB.
> I don't understand this assertion, as long as there is a contractual
> relationship with your LIR, there is no "alien maintainer". Please keep in
> mind that an LIR is NOT required to provide PI assignment services. So if
> those "customers" don't like your set of rules, they are free to find
> another LIR which offers what they want.
Ok, but if I want to be more user friendly than others? Or if I bored with
making updates of my users' objects?
> What you definitely _can_ do is add an _additional_ maintainer for your
> user. Then having any credential as listed in _any_ of the maintainers
> allows access. Evaluation of the auth: tags is done according to a LOGICAL
> OR policy.
From the beginning I said about "bad guys". If user really one - he just sends
an update to remove my mntner - and I loose control on object completly.
> Not to my knowledge. I think I suggested that before - in case you deploy
> the multiple maintainer approch, you probably should enable the
> notification mechanism(s) [in your maintainer] to each time get an alert
> when your customer happens to change registration data.
But notification comes a bit later, isn't it? ;)
> And you may want to include an explicit provision in your contract that
> prevents your customer from removing the link to _your_ maintainer object.
If all users always do what is written in the contract - there was no deal
about all of that at all.
--
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
