Colleagues
[Apologies for the duplicate email. There was a problem with my
previous posting and anyone registered on the list with a gmail,
yahoo or microsoft email address did not receive it.]
We have taken into account the comments made
in recent weeks and propose the following as the final draft
of a problem statement. If there are no more comments on this
then the co-chairs accept this as NWI-7 and we will move onto
phase 2 and start to look at possible solutions to the defined
problems.
cheers
Denis
co-chair DB-WG
Problem statement on "abuse-c:" implementation:
===============================================
It is currently not possible to specify alternative abuse
contacts for different resources in the RIPE Database held by
different parts of the same organisation.
It is currently not reasonably possible to specify alternative
abuse contacts for resources in the RIPE Database assigned to
organisations other than the parent oganisation. In many
circumstances these organisations are customers of the parent
organization. The lower organization wishes to handle the
abuse separate from the parent organization.
The current mechanism is considered by some people to be over
complicated when it has to be set up manually. Others believe
it is simple to implement using the API and available
libraries. Others question the need for double indirection for
abuse-c. This point may come down to a question of raw data
manipulation vs tooled information management.
After the introduction of "abuse-c", the "abuse-mailbox:"
attribute in the PERSON, MNTNER, ORGANISATION and IRT objects
was intended to be deprecated. This cleanup was never done and
the old data causes confusion to users manually searching the
database.
After the introduction of "abuse-c", the implementation of the
'person' keyword did not get updated.