On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 12:03:37PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005, at 17:39, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote:
In my opinion this aproach is wrong. an inetnum or route does not have an email or even read emails. There is *someone* there handling abuse, who has an email (maybe designated for abuse) that is reading malis and hopefully doing something. What do I miss here.
On 6 May 2004, at 11:39, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
Making the _same_ distinguished attribute available in both primary (inet*num, AS) and secondary (reference-targets: person, role, org, irt) objects gives the widest scope for maintainers to do what is _convenient for them_ whilst retaining overall consistency.
This was what we thought the consensus was.
I think the history was:
- proposal to add "abuse-mailbox:" to INETNUM objects - concern with this, suggestion to put in contacts - concern that this was too hard, and confusing - suggestion to do both
There seems to be a lot of concern with "abuse-mailbox:" in INETNUM and INET6NUM. Perhaps the easiest way forward is to exclude them at this time, and then add them later if problems persist?
Please do include them, I understand the concern, but it took I think over 2 years to get to this compromise, please implement it as we Really Need It Now. I also think it's a good compromise, for people who want to do it simple, there is abuse-mailbox, for people wanting to do it properly, there is the IRT object. Regards, Andre Koopal MCI
-- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC