struct. differences in PI vs. PA request forms & use of role:
Dear community and NCC, while talking with one of my colleagues (who very recently attended a LIR training), and processing a request submitted by one of our customers to change their inetnum: contact details I started to wonder: As far as I can remember there was a rule (strong recommendation?) to use a "real" person as the contact in admin-c:, while a role: could be used for tech-c: and zone-c: (But maybe I am mixing [legacy] domain object requirements or some TLD admin's requirements with the address registry...) I was told that the LIR training course _does_ mention the role: object, but _does not_ offer guidance about the use. So, I started digging for documentation about the use of, and linkage to, person: and role: objects for inet[6]num. No success. I probably missed some section where it is described. Then I had a look at the PI and PA request forms and accomp. notes. Again, no guidance as to where a role c/should be used (or not). At the same time I became aware again, that the _new_ PI and PA address request forms are different: the PI form still has the database object section, but that was dropped from the PA form! I am left with 2 questions now: A) why is there a difference between PI and PA forms regarding DB information? B) is there still a recommendation or requirement to use a "real" person: as the reference for an admin-c:? Thanks for any help. Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Wilfried, Thanks for your comments. We include details on how role objects can be used and why they might be used in the course. We don't specifically ask people not to use role objects for "admin-c:" as we cannot know the internal structure of the organisation running a network. On the whole we try to let people know their options, so that they can make the decision that is appropriate to their circumstances when they register their objects in the database. On Feb 27, 2004, at 9:49 pm, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: [...]
A) why is there a difference between PI and PA forms regarding DB information?
The PA request form no longer includes a complete inetnum template. This is because the Hostmasters do not need to see the whole inetnum object to approve the assignment. Including the inetnum template in PA request form caused more problems than it solved. The RIPE NCC registers the inetnum object in the database when PI assignments are made. For that reason we need to see the whole inetnum object. The supporting notes for the request form state: "The "admin-c:" attribute contains the nic-hdl for the administrative contact person. This person should be administratively responsible for the network. A role object nic-hdl can also be used in this attribute." Contacts from different LIRs need different levels of support in requesting address space and registering assignments. That's why the new PA Request Wizard on the LIR Portal helps the requester put the inetnum object together. When the assignment is approved by the Hostmasters the inetnum is automatically inserted into the database.
B) is there still a recommendation or requirement to use a "real" person: as the reference for an admin-c:?
I suspect that this needs to be decided by database users rather than the RIPE NCC. Times change and recommendations might need to change, too. Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
participants (2)
-
leo vegoda -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet