It's been very quiet on the list since the frantic activity at the end of last week. I expect day-to-day reality has imposed itself. I've done some further thinking, and have reviewed the contributions last week on the db-wg list. I've tried to recognize the issues and alternatives in this message and to make proposals as straw-men for consensus. I've used a bullet-point approach, as I think no-one is likely to have time to read anything more discursive. I'll happily explain anything that people find too terse. Here goes ... Attribute name Name should be distinctive, eg: 'abuse-mailbox'; not 'e-mail' Handle Handle is upwardly scalable Handle could refer to person, role, or maintainer Value Value is necessary; if not in primary object, then indirectly Value in primary object is attractive at low end of scale Value is vulnerable to RHS-hijacking, even if not in primary object! Hint string Trailing #-comment is easiest RFC822 parens-comment as part of value is possible Qualifier to attribute name would be neat, but may be difficult to implement (eg: abuse-mailbox-{spam,security}) Proposal (1) Advertisement (sysadmin) side Use two attributes: one to hold value, the other to hold handle Use attribute 'abuse-mailbox' to hold value Use attribute name 'abuse-c' to hold indirect object handle Allow use of 'abuse-mailbox' attribute in primary object Encourage use of attribute in indirect object as best practice Support all relevant indirect objects (person, role, maintainer) in order to make it easy for sysadmins We REALLY WANT sysadmins to ADOPT this (NAFS: no apol for shout) Inheritance Implemented in query tool: design and coding resource impact Must be 'intuitive' for advertising sysadmin Two axes: by reference to handle; by containing block Priority: by reference first, but ... Proposal (2) Query side algorithm Specifies behaviour of focused query tool Sysadmins must take account when advertising in order to align query result with their intent Needs discussion: Concept Implementation: cost to implement, performance, possible pruning of search tree Given object (from inet*num, asnum, ...) and circumstances To identify appropriate abuse contact Find contact set for given object Include tech-c.email value for given object if set is empty Discard members of set unless circumstances match hint Return survivor(s) To find contact set Start with empty set Add all abuse-mailbox values found in current object While set still empty visit abuse-c, mnt-c, tech-c ... (?) Find contact set for visited object Stop visiting as soon as set is no longer empty While set still empty visit containing block Find contact set for containing block (if any) (Note: person, role, mntner have no containing block) Stop visiting as soon as set is no longer empty Return set -- Ends --
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:32:42PM +0000, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
It's been very quiet on the list since the frantic activity at the end of last week. I expect day-to-day reality has imposed itself.
I've done some further thinking, and have reviewed the contributions last week on the db-wg list. I've tried to recognize the issues and alternatives in this message and to make proposals as straw-men for consensus.
I've used a bullet-point approach, as I think no-one is likely to have time to read anything more discursive. I'll happily explain anything that people find too terse.
Sounds good, but what do you consider 'primary objects', as in what templates will be modified to allow for abuse-mailbox and/or abuse-c ? Grtx, MarcoH
On 6 Feb 2004, at 12:45, MarcoH wrote:
Sounds good, but what do you consider 'primary objects', as in what templates will be modified to allow for abuse-mailbox and/or abuse-c ?
Sorry, I should have made this clearer. I'm thinking of inet*num, aut-num as 'primary'; person, role, mntner as 'indirect'. This would involve extending 6 templates for 'abuse-mailbox' and 3 templates for 'abuse-c'. Ppl may think of others. Niall
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 01:02:42PM +0000, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 6 Feb 2004, at 12:45, MarcoH wrote:
Sounds good, but what do you consider 'primary objects', as in what templates will be modified to allow for abuse-mailbox and/or abuse-c ?
Sorry, I should have made this clearer.
I'm thinking of inet*num, aut-num as 'primary'; person, role, mntner as 'indirect'. This would involve extending 6 templates for 'abuse-mailbox' and 3 templates for 'abuse-c'. Ppl may think of others.
To get this clear you mean this ? inetnum abuse-c abuse-mailbox inet6num abuse-c abuse-mailbox aut-num abuse-c abuse-mailbox mntner abuse-mailbox person abuse-mailbox role abuse-mailbox Looks fine to me...the best of both worlds, although we might consider to also extend irt with the abuse-mailbox and allow abuse-c to refer to an irt object ? But maybe I'm opening another can of worms here. Grtx,
we might consider to also extend irt with the abuse-mailbox and allow abuse-c to refer to an irt object ?
why not remove irt entirely? it is not needed given this proposal. "less is more." -- mies van der rohe randy
Absolutely! That was Ulrich's idea: once the person/role/mntner can carry what we need, discard the more cumbersome irt object. Niall On 6 Feb 2004, at 14:33, Randy Bush wrote:
why not remove irt entirely? it is not needed given this proposal.
"less is more." -- mies van der rohe
randy
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 01:02:42PM +0000, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
I'm thinking of inet*num, aut-num as 'primary'; person, role, mntner as 'indirect'. This would involve extending 6 templates for 'abuse-mailbox' and 3 templates for 'abuse-c'. Ppl may think of others.
On 06.02 15:26, MarcoH wrote:
To get this clear you mean this ?
inetnum abuse-c abuse-mailbox inet6num abuse-c abuse-mailbox aut-num abuse-c abuse-mailbox
mntner abuse-mailbox person abuse-mailbox role abuse-mailbox
That's probably the best that can be done - easy and powerfull -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges.
Attribute name Name should be distinctive, eg: 'abuse-mailbox'; not 'e-mail'
since it should be a handle, which allows me to even get to a <gasp!> phone number, calling it mail-anything seems a mis-direction. since all the rest are of the form <foo>-c:, do we have to invent something new?
Handle Handle is upwardly scalable Handle could refer to person, role, or maintainer
yep
Value Value is necessary; if not in primary object, then indirectly Value in primary object is attractive at low end of scale Value is vulnerable to RHS-hijacking, even if not in primary object!
do not understand. do you mean the value (right hand side) of the abuse-c: attribute? or are we sending cash? :-) at this point, either i am not understanding something(s) or your discussion gets very complex. i am old and stupider every day, so much inclined to very simple things. e.g., o add abuse-c: which points to the nic-handle: of a person or role o separate, but worthwhile, discussion about enhancing person and role objects per ulrich. randy
participants (4)
-
MarcoH
-
Matus UHLAR - fantomas
-
Niall O'Reilly
-
Randy Bush