NWI-1 - staying on top of abuse contact changes
Dear WG, This is our first Numbered Work Item! We are now in phase 1. (You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.) The following preliminary problem statement has been put forth by Denis & Piotr: "The resource holder could be unaware of changes made to the abuse contact details for his/her resources. This could happen as a result of any addition, change or deletion of any part of the abuse contact details put in his/her ORGANISATION object ("abuse-c: attribute, referenced ROLE object, "abuse-mailbox:" attribute)." I ask the working group whether they agree with this problem statement, they can identify with the problem, whether the statement needs amendments. Kind regards, Job
I do not agree there is a problem. Interested parties should add a notify to the objects in question and call it a day. There was a proposal on the slides in the room (https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/148-NWI-1.pdf). I don't mind such an attribute, but strongly disagree that it should be required. if it was optional, I would have no objections. On 2016 May 13 (Fri) at 15:52:07 +0200 (+0200), Job Snijders wrote: :Dear WG, : :This is our first Numbered Work Item! We are now in phase 1. : :(You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html :to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.) : :The following preliminary problem statement has been put forth by Denis :& Piotr: : : "The resource holder could be unaware of changes made to the abuse : contact details for his/her resources. This could happen as a result : of any addition, change or deletion of any part of the abuse contact : details put in his/her ORGANISATION object ("abuse-c: attribute, : referenced ROLE object, "abuse-mailbox:" attribute)." : :I ask the working group whether they agree with this problem statement, :they can identify with the problem, whether the statement needs :amendments. : :Kind regards, : :Job : -- The identical is equal to itself, since it is different. -- Franco Spisani
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 03:26:23PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote:
I do not agree there is a problem. Interested parties should add a notify to the objects in question and call it a day.
There was a proposal on the slides in the room (https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/148-NWI-1.pdf). I don't mind such an attribute, but strongly disagree that it should be required. if it was optional, I would have no objections.
Proposed additional attribute was one of the possible approaches to the problem. Adding notify: to every object is one another. Still, both of then could be useful in the next phase of NWI (if there will be next phase ;-) ). Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:52:07PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
Dear WG,
This is our first Numbered Work Item! We are now in phase 1.
(You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.)
The following preliminary problem statement has been put forth by Denis & Piotr:
"The resource holder could be unaware of changes made to the abuse contact details for his/her resources. This could happen as a result of any addition, change or deletion of any part of the abuse contact details put in his/her ORGANISATION object ("abuse-c: attribute, referenced ROLE object, "abuse-mailbox:" attribute)."
I ask the working group whether they agree with this problem statement, they can identify with the problem, whether the statement needs amendments.
I agree with the problem statement. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl
participants (3)
-
Job Snijders -
Peter Hessler -
Piotr Strzyzewski