Randy Bush wrote:
What is the difference between the following to answers from the database
the abuse-c: proposal does not require creation of a new object type, the irt: object. it reuses the person: and role: objects, as the semantics, "here is who you contact," are really the same.
i don't think we want to differentiate the kind of people/groups who handle abuse from those who handle tech/admin things. they're all just contacts.
Fair enough, thx. What I am afraid of is having 2 things basically doung the same irt and abuse-c. so maybe there is a way to 'merge' these two things (wild thinking of me): Looking at the difference between irt and roles in general, there are actually quite few: 1. Role lacks of the two pgp-attributes. Might it be worth to put them as optional into that templates? [I'd say probably yes, because it might be useful in other situations as well] 2. Protection against 'illegal' referecing. (Meaning "Hey UCD has a nice role for abuse, i reference this role in my inetnums as well") There we had a discussion in the context of the org object, putting a generalized machinery (mnt-ref, ref-nfy) in place. IMHO this _should_ be added (optional) to role/person anyway. 3. The -c flag: This could be incorporated with the irt as well. Or in a even more generalized way have a "whois -c abuse-c 131.130.7.44" returning the most specific inetnum containing an abuse-c, and maybe if useful extending the semantics to other attributes if useful. If those three things are incorporated, abuse-c has all the features irt has, except for the creation policy. But this is up to discussion anyway. I hope I make some sense here lG uk -- Ulrich Kiermayr Zentraler Informatikdienst der Universitaet Wien Network - Security - ACOnet-CERT Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Wien, AT eMail: ulrich.kiermayr@univie.ac.at Tel: (+43 1) 4277 / 14104 PGP Key-ID: 0xA8D764D8 Fax: (+43 1) 4277 / 9140